ACIT, CHENNAI V. R.Sagunthala Rangarajan, CHENNAI

ITA 1552/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6298 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Validity of assessment; Revised return; Reason to believe
• Section: 153A; 148; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . , . . , ! ' [BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] ./ I.T.A.NO.1549 TO 1554/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2008-09 THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III(3) CHENNAI VS. SMT. R. SAGUNTHALA RANGARAJAN OLD NO.24, NEW NO.38 ABM AVENUE, R.A.PURAM CHENNAI 600 028 [PAN AOUPS 3497 P ] ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI GURU BHASHYAM, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE / DATE OF HEARING : 17-06-2014 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-06-2014 ' / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE REVENUES APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 03-04 TO 2008-09, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST A COMMON ORDER OF TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II CHENNAI, DATED 25.4.2013, PA SSED IN I.T.A.NOS.23 TO 28/11-12/A.II PARTLY DELETING PENAL TIES UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) OF ` 27,427/- I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 2 -: , ` 1,79,198/-, ` 17,487/-, ` 1,54,544/-, ` 3,34,953/- AND ` 7,002/;- RESPECTIVELY. 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE REVENUE STRONGLY ARGU ES THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE AFFIRMED THE AFORESAID PEN ALTIES QUA THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED PRIOR TO THE SEARCH AND THE ONE AFTER SECTION 153C NOTICES. IT IS CONTENDED TH AT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEA RS HAD RIGHTLY IMPOSED THE PENALTIES IN QUESTION. TO BUTTRESS ITS ARGUMENTS, THE REVENUE RELIES ON THE CASE LAW OF HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT - N. RAJIT VS CIT TAX CASE APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2010 DATED 18.6.2013 AND [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 132 (DELHI) CIT VS SMT. MEERA DEVI TO PRAY FOR ACCEPTANCE OF ALL APPEALS. 3. OPPOSING THIS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS IN ALL CASES T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE AFORESAID PENALTIES QUA NOTIONAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. SHE ARGUES THAT THERE HAS B EEN NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON HER PART. SHE ALSO QUOTES ORDERS OF THE 'TRIBUNAL' PE RTAINING TO HER DAUGHTERS SMT. R. MAHALAKSHMI AND SMT. R. VEENA I.T .A.NOS.1555 TO 1559/MDS/2013 AND 1560 TO 1562/MDS/2013; RESPECTIVE LY, BOTH DATED 23.9.2013 TO PRAY FOR REJECTION OF ALL APPEALS. I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 3 -: BOTH PARTIES ARE FAIR ENOUGH TO CLARIFY THAT THE S OLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS IDENTICAL I.E IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN ALL CASES. THEREFORE, WE TAKE UP I.T.A.NO.1549/ MDS/2013 AS THE LEAD CASE. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. ON 29.7.2006, SH E HAD FILED HER RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 12,47,985/-. SHE IS STATED TO BE WIFE OF SHRI R. RANGARAJAN. ON 26.8.2008, A SEARC H WAS CONDUCTED IN CASE OF VEL TECH GROUP OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI R. RANGARAJAN LEADING TO ALLEGED SEIZURE OF CASH AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN PURSUANCE THEREOF, A NOTICE U/S 153C STOOD ISSUED IN ASSESSEES NAME. ON 29.10.2010, THE AS SESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN DISCLOSING INCOME AS ` 12,98,390/-. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO INCOMES ADMITTED ON 29.7.2006 AND 29.10.2010 RO UNDED OFF TO ` 50,400/- CROPPED UP BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCL OSED GROSS INCOME OF ` 72,000/- FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, DEDUCTED 30% THERE OF AMOUNTING TO ` 21,600/- AS REPAIRS AND THE BALANCE 70% AMOUNTING TO ` 50,400/- STOOD DECLARED AS THE NET INCOME. ON 31. 12.2010, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT M AKING ADDITION OF ` 1,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE . HE HAD ALSO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE S UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND AGRICULTURE WAS NO T VOLUNTARY BUT I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 4 -: ONLY DUE TO SECTION 153C NOTICE (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 153A). SO, HE INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE QUA BOTH THE AFORESAID TWO UNDISCLOSED INCOMES U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL AND THE ASSESSMENT ATTAINED FINALITY. 5. COMING TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE PLEADED HER INADVERTENT OMISSION IN NOT ADMITTING UNDISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1,00,000/- WITH THE ONE FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 50,400/-. PER ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON HER PA RT EITHER TO CONCEAL OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME . IN ORDER DATED 27.6.2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE AFOR ESAID EXPLANATION BY OBSERVING THAT BUT FOR SEARCH, SHE WOULD NOT H AVE DECLARED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 50,400/- AS TIME LIMIT U/S 139 STOOD EXPIRED LONG BACK AND ALSO THAT INSPITE OF SECTION 153C NOT ICE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1,00,000/- (SUPRA). SO, HE INVOKED SECTION 271(1)(C) AND TURNED DOWN THE ASSE SSEES JUSTIFICATION MADE IN LIGHT OF EXPLANATION 5 THEREOF. IN THIS M ANNER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED MINIMUM PENALTY OF ` 27,427/- QUA TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME COMPUTED OF ` 1,50,400/-. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL. SHE RAISED A LEGAL PLEA THAT ONLY AN ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OUGHT TO HAVE FRAMED I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 5 -: AND NOT THE ONE U/S 153A OF THE ACT LEADING TO IMP OSITION OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. ALONGWITH THE SAME, SHE HAD ALSO PLEADED THAT HER INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF ` 50,400/- WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL BUT ONLY A CASE OF VOLUNTARY DISCLO SURE. SHE ADOPTED SIMILAR ARGUMENTS FOR UNDISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL I NCOME OF ` 1,00,000/-. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY QUA ALLEGED U NDISCLOSED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND REJECTED THE OTHER CONT ENTIONS AS FOLLOWS: 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AR. I HAVE ALSO GO NE THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ID.AR. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PENALTY ORDER AND THE OTHER DETAI LS' SUBMITTED BY THE ID. AR. THE AO HAS LEVIED PENALTY ON THE ADDITI ONS 0F RS.1,00,000/- TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCO ME. HE HAS ALSO LEVIED PENALTY ON THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.50,405/- BET WEEN THE RETURNED INCOME U/S 139 AND INCOME DECLARED U/S.153A R.W.S.1 53C. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED OBJECTION THAT PENALTY COULD H AVE BEEN LEVIED ONLY ON AN ORDER PASSED U/S 153C AND NOT AN ORDER PASSED U/S 153A BECAUSE IN THE INSTANT CASE, ORDER OUGHT TO HAVE BE EN PASSED U/S 153C. IT IS TRUE THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C A RE APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON. HOWEVER, ON BEING HANDED OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR AS SETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, THE A.O HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE OTHER PERSON IS REQUIRED TO PROCEED AGAINST THE OTHER PERSON AND IS SUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. THUS, THE ASSESSM ENT HAS TO BE MADE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A R.W.S 15 3C. HOWEVER, THE A.O HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3). HE HAS NOT MENTIONED SECTION 153C IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BU T, PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S 153A R.W.S 153C. HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE RIGHTLY INITIATED U/S 1 53C BUT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER ON 31.12.2010, THE A.O HAS OMITTE D TO MENTION 153C AFTER RIGHTLY MENTIONING SECTION 153A. THIS W AS ONLY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT AND FAILURE TO MENTION SECTION 15 3C ALSO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT FATAL. I AM OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INVALID ONLY DUE TO OMIS SION TO MENTION ONE OF THE SECTIONS WHILE PASSING THE ORDER. THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 292B ARE RELEVANT IN SUCH SITUATION. SECTION 292B WAS INSERTED IN THE ACT WHEREBY NO RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTIC E, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INVALID MERELY ON ACCOUN T OF ANY MISTAKE, I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 6 -: DEFECT OR OMISSION WHERE THE RETURN, ASSESSMENT, N OTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT ARE IN CO NFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENTION AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT. BY INCORPORATING THIS PROVISION, IT HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR THAT TECHNIC AL MISTAKES CARRYING NO SUBSTANCE SHALL NOT COME IN THE WAY OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, MINOR DEFECTS OR IRREGULARITIES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AFORESAID, WOULD NOT NEGATE THE V ALIDITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE A.O AND THE ASSESSEE W OULD NOT BE ABLE TO RAISE TECHNICAL OR VENIAL DEFECTS IN THIS REGARD . RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BANGALORE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF ACIT VS DILIP KUMAR BALAR, 4 ITR(TRIB)229 (BANG.). HENCE, THE OBJECTIONS OF THE LD. A.R ARE REJECTED. 6.1 COMING BACK TO THE ARGUMENTS ON MERIT, IT MAY BE STATED THAT PENALTY IS LEVIED OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF ANY TAX OR INTEREST PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THUS DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT FROM THE TAX PAYABLE. ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER ARE AL SO DISTINCT AND SEPARATE ORDERS. THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER INCOME-TAX LAW MAY NOT BE CRIMINAL IN NATURE, THEY ARE STILL QUASI -CRIMINAL REQUIRING THE DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE INFERENCE DRAWN IN T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED IN PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS AS DECIDED IN ANANTHARAM VEERASINGHAIAH AND CO. VS CIT, 123 ITR 437(SC). AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C), IF THE A.O OR THE CIT(A) OR THE CIT, IN COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UND ER THE ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS EITHER (I) CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR (II) FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY, IN ADDITION TO THE TAX, IF ANY PAYABLE, DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THA N, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. WHILE CONSI DERING AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER MADE U/S 271(1)(C), WHAT IS REQU IRED TO BE EXAMINED IS THE RECORD WHICH THE A.O IMPOSING PENA LTY HAD BEFORE HIM AND IF THAT RECORD CAN SUSTAIN THE FINDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN TH E PENALTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO ON THE DIF FERENCE OF INCOME BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE RETURN FILED U /S 153C. LET US NOW DISCUSS SEPARATELY WHETHER PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION AND THE DIFFERENCE IN INCOME. 6.2 THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT O F UNDISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT DISCLOS ED THE SAID INCOME IN ANY OF THE RETURNS FILED U/S 139 OR U/S 153A. THIS AMOUNT HAD BEEN ADDED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE CASH ACCOUNT. T HE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT IT WAS RECEIVED AS LEASE ADVANCE FROM M /S VEL HORTICULTURE LTD BUT IT COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY AGREEMENT IN SUPP ORT OF THE CLAIM. I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 7 -: THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH OF R S. 1,00,000/- WHICH IS REFLECTED IN HER CASH ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HA S SHOWN SIMILAR AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 3,50,000/-, RS.4,50,000/ -, RS.13,50,000/-, RS.4,00,000/- AND RS.1,95,000/- IN A.YS 2004-05 TO 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. TO EXPLAIN THE CASH IN HER ACCOUNT F OR VARIOUS YEARS, SHE HAS CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS NOT SU PPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. IT MAY NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION HE RE THAT ALL OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS VIZ. SHRI R. RANGARAJAN, SMT. R.HEMA MAHESHWARI AND SMT. R. MAHALAKSHMI HAVE ALSO CLAIMED SIMILAR A GRICULTURAL INCOME FOR ALL THOSE YEARS TO EXPLAIN INTRODUCTION OF CASH IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY LEVIE D PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE S AME IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. 6.3 THE A.O. HAS ALSO LEVIED PENALTY ON DIFFERENCE OF RS. 50,405/- BETWEEN THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 15 3C AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE LD. AR HAS STATED THAT THE AD DITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME ORIGINALLY DECLARED AND NOT DUE TO THE FACT THAT TH E DEPARTMENT HAD FOUND / DETECTED THE INCOME DURING THE SEARCH PROCE EDINGS OR ON SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT, IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE A .O. HAS STATED THAT HE HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE DECLARED THE ENHANCED AMOUNT OF RS. 50,405/- VOLUNTARILY WITHOUT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO DEFINITE FINDIN G ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN THE PENALTY ORDER. WHILE CONSIDERING AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER U/S 271(1)(C), WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINE D IS THE RECORD WHICH THE A.O. IMPOSING PENALTY HAD BEFORE HIM AND IF THAT RECORD CAN SUSTAIN THE FINDING THAT THERE IS A CONCEALMENT, TH AT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE PENALTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A MOUNT HAS BEEN VOLUNTARILY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, TAX HAS BEEN PAID ON THE ADMITTED INCOME. THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (251 ITR 9) IS RELEVANT IN SUCH A SITUATION. IN TH AT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED RETURNS SHOWING MEAGER INCOME. WHEN, AFTER SEARCH ACTION U/S 132, A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED ON HIM, HE FILED REVISED RETURNS SHOWING HIGHER INCOME. SUBSEQUENTL Y, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AND THE RETURN SUBMITTED WAS REGUL ARIZED U/S 148. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C), THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID LITIGATION. A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION AND LEVIED PENAL TY WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). BUT THE ITAT HELD THAT THE DE PARTMENT HAS NOT DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN OF PROVING CONCEALMENT AND HA D SIMPLY RESTED ITS CONCLUSION ON THE ACT OF VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER DONE BY ASSESSEE ON GOOD FAITH AND THAT PENALTY ORDER COULD NOT BE LEVI ED. ON A REFERENCE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT NO PENALTY ORDER C OULD BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT. THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED APPEALS TO T HE HONBLE I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 8 -: SUPREME COURT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE APPEALS HOLDING THAT INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE HIG H COURT WAS CALLED FOR (251 ITR 9). THERE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. HERE ALSO, A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT TH E PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME SUB SEQUENT TO THE SEARCH U/S 153A R.W.S. 153C AND VOLUNTARILY ADMITTE D THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 50,405/-. THERE IS NO DEFINITE FINDING ABOUT CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS A BOUT THIS INCOME OF RS. 50,405/-. IT IS ENTIRELY A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- WAS ALSO MADE TO THE ABOVE RETURNED INC OME. PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSTAINED IN THIS ORDE R. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITIONS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 50,405/- DOES NOT WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). TH E GROUND IS ALLOWED THEREFORE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE FILE. THE CASE LAW QUOTED (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PERUSED . PER REVENUE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED. THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CONTENDS THAT SHE ALONGWITH HER TWO DAUGHTERS/CO-SH ARERS IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY HAD DECLARED SIMILAR NOTIONAL IN COMES AND IDENTICAL PENALTIES IMPOSED IN OTHER TWO CASES IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SAME VERY SEARCH STANDS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND FURTHER A FFIRMED BY THE 'TRIBUNAL' (SUPRA). THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO PO INT OUT ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS. PROCEEDING FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT SO F AR AS ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONCERNED, IT PERTAINS TO AN AMOUNT OF ` 50,400/- QUA NOTIONAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERT Y (WHICH TURNS OUT TO BE IDENTICAL UPTO 2006-07). THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THIS AMOUNT IN HER RETURN FILED ON 29.7.2006. SHE HAD D ECLARED GROSS I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 9 -: NOTIONAL INCOME OF ` 72,000/-, DEDUCTED 30% THEREOF AS REPAIRS AND OFFERED BALANCE SUM OF ` 50,400/- FOR TAX. HER PLEA IS THAT THIS AMOUNT OF ` 50,400/- HAS NOWHERE BEEN ARISEN OUT OF THE BOOKS AND OTHER MATERIAL SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE RE VENUE FAILS TO PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT THIS SPECIFIC CONTENT ION THAT THIS INCOME IS NOTIONAL AND NOT ACCRUED. IN THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE FIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) EXPLANATION 5A CLAUSE (II) RELE VANT FOR A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 1.6.2007 CLARIFIES THAT THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE BASED ON AN ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS ETC. UNDISPUTEDLY, THIS NOTIONAL INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY DOES NOT COME UNDER ANY OF TH E AFORESAID TERMINOLOGIES. THUS, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEL D TO HAVE CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHI N THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS CASE LAW OF CIT VS SMT. MEERA DEVI (SUPR A) IS CONCERNED, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE 'TRIBUNAL' HAS ALREADY DISTINGUISHED ITS APPLICATION IN CONNECTED CASES (S UPRA). IN CASE LAW OF N. RANJIT(SUPRA), THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE NOT FOUN D TO BE SIMILAR SINCE IT WAS ALSO NOT A CASE OF ANY NOTIONAL INCOME FRO M HOUSE PROPERTY DECLARED AFTER 153C NOTICE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES , WE AGREE WITH I.T.A.NOS. 1549 TO 1554/13 :- 10 -: THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE IMPUGNED PE NALTY AND REJECT THE REVENUES CORRESPONDING GROUNDS. I.T.A.NO.1549/MDS/2013 IS DISMISSED. 8. SAME ORDER TO FOLLOW IN I.T.A.NOS.1550 TO 1554/MDS/ 2013. 9. TO SUM UP, ALL REVENUES APPEALS I.T.A.NOS.1549 TO 1554/MDS/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 20 TH OF JUNE, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ) (S. S. GODARA) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 20 TH JUNE, 2014 RD %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+, - / DR 3. *./ / CIT(A) 6. ,01 / GF