Shri Narsinhbhai T. Patel, Valsad V. The Income Tax Officer,Vapi Ward-2, Vapi

ITA 1674/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6269 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1 418 / AHD /201 3 AND 1674/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEAR: 20 0 8 - 20 09 SHRI NARSINHBHAI TRIKAMDAS PATEL, D - 402, SIMIT CO - OP. HSD. SOCIETY, GUNJAN ROAD, GIDC, VAPI - 396195 P AN : ACCPP 2978G VS . I T O , WARD - 2, VAPI (APPLICANT) (RESPONENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH UPADHYAY , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA , SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 04 / 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07 / 04 /201 7 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEAL S OF A SSESSEE FO R ASST.YEAR 2008 - 2009, PERTAIN TO QUANTUM ADDITION AND PENALTY U/S.271(1 ) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 , (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) . THE QUANTUM APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS ), VALSAD (IN SHORT, LD. CIT(A)) DATED 15 / 0 1 / 201 3 , ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF ITO, WA RD - II, VAPI, DATED 10/12/2010 PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE APPEAL RELATING TO PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 12/05/2015 , ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF ITO, WARD - II, VAPI, DATED 14/02/2014, PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 2 2 . AS OBSERVED BY R EGISTRY, THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO QUANTUM ADDITION IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS. IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE DELAY ASSESEE HAS FILED AN APPLICAT ION SUBMITTING THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) WAS RECEIVED ON 14/03/2013 AND IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER WAS DISPATCHED TO THE REGISTRY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ON 09/05/2013 BY RPAD. ASSESSEE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT NORMALLY IT TAKES TWO TO THREE DAY S TO DISPATCH, BUT IN THIS CASE FOR UNKNOWN REASON IT WAS DISPATCHED ON 14/05/2013, RESULTING IN DELAY OF TWO DAYS. LD.COUNSEL REFERRING TO THIS APPLICATION PRAYED FOR CONDONING THE DELAY. 3 . WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND OBSERVE THAT APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS AND THE REASON FOR THIS WAS DELAY IN DISPATCH BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH WAS NOT IN CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND WE THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY , A DMIT THE APPEAL AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE S RAISED. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT , ASSE SSE IS A N INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF TRADING IN M.S. PIPES UNDER SOLE PROPRIETARY - C ONCERN IN THE NAME OF M/S. GOPAL PIPE & HARDWAR E . THE A SSESSE IS ALSO PARTNER IN M/S.VIN AY ENTERPRISE. ASSESSE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME 29/12/2008, FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,56,620/ - . CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S.143(2 ) OF THE AC T, WAS ISSUED AND DULY SERVED, NECESSARY DET AILS WERE CALLED FOR. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INQUIRED ABOUT UNSECURED LOAN, CASH CREDIT, DIFFERENCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT REFLECTED IN PERSON AL AND PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES . REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONVINCE LD. ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 3 ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS.6,24,567/ - A FTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS OF RS. 4 , 67 , 949/ - . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND PARTLY SUCCEEDE D . SUBSEQUENT TO ORDER OF LD .CIT(A) IN QUANTUM APPEAL PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON THE ALLEGED SUSTAINED ADDITION OF UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 1 LAC , P ENALTY OF RS.30,900/ - WAS IMPOSED. 5 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBU N AL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, SUSTAINED BY LD.CIT(A) 6 . FIRST WE TAKE UP ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 RELATING TO QUANTUM ADDITION WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THREE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. GROUN D NO.1 RELATING TO ABOVE APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO ADD ON AMOUNT OF RS.2,49,000/ - U/S.68 OF I.Y. ACT 1961. AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,69,500/ - WAS NOT TAKEN IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS ALSO ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS,1,00,000/ - WHICH IS ADVANCED BY MANILAL M. PATEL CHENAL. 7 . BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET UNSECURED LOAN WAS APPEARING AT RS.1 LAC FROM MR.MANILAL M. PATEL. ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS IN PROPER WAY AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE ALLEGED LOAN OF RS.1 LAC . E VEN BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A SSESSEE FILED SOME DETAILS IN THE FORM OF SALE BILLS OF CASTRO NUTS PRODUCED BY ALLEGED LOAN CREDITO RS , MR.MANILAL MADHAVDAS , WHO WAS TOLD TO BE A AGRICULTURIST. HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS SALE BILLS ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 4 RELATED TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2010 - 11 , WHEREAS THE APPEAL RELATED TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2007 - 08. 8 . NOW, THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E TRIBUN AL. LD.AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (IN SHORT LD.DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THIS GROUND IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT, AT RS.1 LAC TOWARDS LOAN RECEIVED FROM MANILAL MADHAVDAS. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RELEVANT DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSE SSING AUTHORITY AND LD.CIT(A). HE FILED SOME DETAILS OF AGRICULTURE LAND HOLDING BY MR.MANILAL M. PATEL AND THE SOURCE OF RS.1 LAC GIVEN BY MANILAL MADHAVDAS WAS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED. HOWEVER, LD.COUNSEL COULD NOT PLACE A NY DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION , INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK STATEMENTS OF MR.MANILAL MADHAVDAS BEFORE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE ALLEGED CASH CREDIT OF RS.1 L AC FROM MR.MANILAL MADHAVDAS, W E CONFIRM THE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT, AT RS.1 LAC AND CALL NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11 . GROUND NO.2 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 5 2. ITO HAS ERRED IN LAW OUT ON FACTS TO ALL AN AMOUNT OF RS.78,000/ - DIFFERENCE WORKED IN CAPITAL A/C OF GOPAL PIPE & HARDWARE AND CAPITAL A/C SHOWN IN ON THE SET SIDE. PERSONAL SET, OVERLOOKING CAPITAL OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF GOPAL PIPES WHICH SHOWS BALANCE OF RS.6,83,926/ - AND IN BALANCE SHEET OF PERSONAL SET IS ALSO RS.6,83,926/ - . LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,00,000/ - 12 . WE OBSERVE THAT THIS GROUND RELATES TO VARIATION IN THE FIGURES OF CAPITAL INVESTED IN SOLE PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S.GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE A S APPEARING IN PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AS AGAINST BALANCE SHEET OF M/S.GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE. ON PERUSAL OF THE PAP ER BOOKS WE FIND THAT IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET OF ASSESSEE IN THE A SSETS SIDE INVESTMENT IN M/S.GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE IS SHOWN AT RS.6,83,926/ - (APPEARING AT PAGE 16 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREAS AT PAGE 17 OF PAPER BOOK SHOWING THE BALANCE SHEET OF M/ S.GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE WHEREIN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETOR SHOWS THE BALANCE OF RS.7,61,926/ - . THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.78,000/ - BETWEEN THESE TWO FIGURES. WE OBSERVE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE LD.CIT(A) ASS ESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE ALLEGED DIFFERENCE OF RS.78,000/ - AND SUBMISSION MADE WERE GENERAL IN NATURE. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, LD.COUNSEL MADE A GENERAL REPLY AND WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE TWO BALANCE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES ASSSESSEE HAS NO PLAUSIBLE BASIS TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO ACCOUNTS VIZ. ONE APPEAR ING IN THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET AND ANOTHER IN THE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.78,000/ - IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 6 13 . GROUND NO.3 RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS FOLLOWS: - 3. LEARNED A.O. HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS TO ESTIMATE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.99,520/ - WITHOUT ANY BASIS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS WITHDRAWAL OF RS.53,212/ - FROM THE FIRM VINAY ENTERPRISES, WHICH IF ADDED TO HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.44,486/ - MADE FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S.GOPAL TRADERS, TOTAL WITHDRAWAL WILL BE OF (RS.44, 400 + RS.53,212) =97,612/ - WHICH IS NO MEANS LESS. 14 . THIS GROUND RELATES TO ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS,1,44,000/ - AS AGAINST HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.44,480/ - 15 . LD.ASSESSING OFFICER M AD E AN ADDITION OF RS.99,520/ - . I N THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE FAMILY DETAILS AS WELL AS COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS FOR VERIFICATION OF WITHDRAWALS. 16 . ASSESSSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. LD.COUNSEL REITERATED THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRED THAT THERE WAS A WITHDRAWAL FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN M/S. GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE AND WITHDRAWAL FROM M/S.VINAY ENTERPRISES, WHEREIN ASSESSEE IS A PARTN ER , WHICH MAKES A TOTAL WITHDRAWAL OF RS.1,08,192/ - 17 . ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 7 18 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE U S. A SSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED WITH LD. CIT(A)S ORDER CO NFIR MING THE AC TION OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSE WITHDRAWAL AT RS.99,520/ - WE OBSERVE THAT LD.COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM VINAY ENTERPRISES AS WELL AS M/S,GOPAL PIPES & HARDWARE, BUT HE FAILED TO T AKE A NOTE THAT WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN AND PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARE TAKEN CARE OF WHILE PREPARING THE PERSON AL BALANCE SHEET IN WHICH ASSESSEE ONLY MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.44,480/ - WHICH, INTER ALIA, INCLUDES WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE TWO CO NCERNS. WE FURTHER NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT O N RECORD THE DETAILS OF ANY FAMILY MEMBERS AND THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN AS WELL AS WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THEM IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE MINIMUM STANDA RD OF LIVING REQUIRED, WE FIND THE ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.1,44,000/ - BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE JUSTIFIED. WE THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND WE THEREFORE, DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1674/AHD/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09. 19 . THE ABOVE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE RELATES TO PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEREIN ASSESEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND: 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,LD.CIT(A), VALSAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS TO SUSTAIN PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO OF RS.30,900/ - U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON ADDITION OF RS,1,00,000/ - BEING CASH CREDIT AVAILED FROM MANIAL M. PATEL FOR RS.1,00,000/ - ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 8 20 . THE BRIEF FACTS STATED RELATIN G TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. AMONG OTHER ADDITIONS LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1 L AC TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT RECEIVED FROM MR.MANILAL M. PATEL, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UN ABLE TO PROVE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE AMOUNT OF LOAN RS.1 LAC. THIS ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT, WAS CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION WHILE ADJUDICATING THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS. 21 . SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ON QUANTUM ADDITION , PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WAS CARRIED OUT AND IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS.30,900/ - ON THE ALLEGED CASH CREDIT OF RS.1 LAC. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUCCEED I N THE APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRM ED THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AT RS.30,900/ - 22 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE. A LL NECESSARY DETAILS RELATING TO IDENTITY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS MR.MANILAL M. PATEL WERE FURNISHED ALONG WITH PROOF OF HIS OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURE LAND, SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED AND BANK CERTIFICATE SHOWING THAT CHEQUE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN T HESE FACTS PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. 23 . ON THE OTHER HAND LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITI ES. 24 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.30,900/ - IMPOSED P ENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS.1 L AC RECEIVED FROM ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 9 MR.MANILAL M. PATEL. WE NOTICE THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.1 LAC HAS BEEN CONFIR MED BY LD.CIT(A) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL . WE HOWEVER, FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD.COUNSEL THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT, AND U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE SEPARATE. AS FAR AS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ON GOING THROUGH THE RE LEVANT DETAILS WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.1 L AC FROM MR.MANILAL M. PATEL IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND A S OME OF RS.18,500/ - WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BALANCE OF LOAN IN THE NAME OF MR.MADHAVDAS PATEL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY PLACED ON RECORDS THE COPY OF AGRICULTURE LAND HOLDING SUPPORTED BY SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT MR.MANILAL M. PATEL, WAS HAVING REQUISITE FUNDS. WE ALSO NOTICE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTIFICATE FROM THE BANKERS OF MR.MANILAL M. PATEL CONFIRMING THAT A CHEQUE OF RS.1 LAC HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 25. FROM GOING THROUGH VARIOUS DETAILS PLACED BY THE LD.COUNS EL WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE , IN ORDER TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ALLEGED CASH CREDIT OF RS.1 LAC , ASSESSEE COULD NOT FIND F AVOUR FROM ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL. HOWEVER, EXAMINING THESE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS DEEMED TO BE IN FAULT IF HE CONCEALS THE PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHES INACCUR ATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. WE NOTICE THAT IN THE GIVEN CASE , ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE P ARTICULAR OF INCOME AND ALSO TRIED TO PROVE ITS CORRECTNESS BY PRESENTING VARIOUS EVIDENCE. W E ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE S E FACTS ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BE EN VISITED BY PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. W E THEREFORE DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.30,900/ - AND ALLOW THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL. ITA NO.1418/AHD/2013 & 1674/AHD/2015 ASSTT. YEAR 2008 - 09 10 26. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH APRIL , 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORA D ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY A HMEDABAD; DATED 07 / 04 /2017 MANISH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , / DR, ITAT, 6. / GUARD FILE .