1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.180/LKW/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1994 - 95 M/S GOBIND INDUSTRIES, DASHEHRA BAGH, BARABANKI. PAN/GIR NO.:G301 VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BARABANKI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.72,000/ - LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT THE PRESENT PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 23/03/2007 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY INSERTED PROVISO T O SECTION 275(1)(A) OF THE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 01/06/2003 FOR ITS ADMISSION AND ADJUDICATION. APPELLANT BY SHRI K. R. RASTOGI, C.A. SHRI SHUBHAM RASTOGI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 04/02/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 2 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K. R. RASTOGI HAS OPTED NOT TO PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS NOT ADMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION. 4. ON MERIT IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: (I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH 1,74,000/ - NOT PROVED (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK 2,64,809/ - (III) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS PROFIT 2,75,500/ - (IV) EXCESS RENT DISA LLOWED 63,000/ - (V) OUT OF VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES 13,192/ - (VI) DEPRECIATION DISALLOWED 5,576/ - TOTAL 7,96,077/ - 4.1 IN QUANTUM APPEAL, THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,74,000/ - AND RS.63,000/ - WERE DELETED. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,75,500 / - WAS REDUCED TO RS.1,14,235/ - . THE ADDITION OF RS.2,64,809/ - WAS ALSO REDUCED TO RS.64,809/ - . THE ADDITIONS WHATEVER MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE CONFIRMED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE MAINLY ON AD HOC BASIS HAVING REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY OF RS.72,000/ - LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS THERE WAS NO FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED FOR AD HOC ADDITIONS, IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 5. LEARNED D.R. PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 6. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE R IVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE MAJOR ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. WHATEVER ADDITIONS WERE MADE, THEY WERE MADE ON AD HOC BASIS AND THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) 3 WAS ALSO L EVIED WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THIS REGARD. SINCE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) LEVIED FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE ON AD HOC BASIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW WE , TH EREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDE R OF CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) HAVING REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 ) SD/. SD/. ( A. K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 1 / 0 4 / 2 0 1 4 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR