V.K.C.Jayamohan, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 1, CHENNAI

ITA 1876/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7909 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V SREEHDHARJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: S SENDAMARAI KANNAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1876/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 MR.V.K.C.JAYAMOHAN , 81/40,KUTCHERY ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-1, CHENNAI-600 034. [PAN ADAPJ 2642 Q ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) ! ' # / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.SENDAMARAI KANNAN, ADVOCATE $% ! ' # /RESPONDENT BY : MR.V.SREEHDHAR,JCIT,D.R & ' ' () / DATE OF HEARING : 24 - 12 - 201 8 * ' () / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 01 - 201 9 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.158/CIT(A)-2/2015-16 DATED 29.05.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: 2012-13 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) MADE BY LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 2. MR.S.SENDAMARAI KANNAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND MR.V.SREEHDHAR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD UNDERTAKEN CONSTRUCTION OF FOUR RESIDE NTIAL PROJECTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETED CONTR ACT METHOD. 3.1 IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE FOUR PROJECTS NAMED A S (I) SKYLAB AVENUE FOR CONSTRUCTING 6 FLATS, WHICH IS A JOINT V ENTURE, (II) BLUE NILE PROJECT WITH 12 FLATS, SUNGLOW PROJECT WITH 10 F LATS AND CLAIRVILLE PROJECT WITH 10 FLATS WHICH ARE CONSTRUCTED ON THE LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED WAS NEARLY ` 2.35 CRORES. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING THE PROJECT COMPLETION METHOD AND CONS EQUENTLY THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE AD DED. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMI TTED A REVISED RETURN DATED 20.03.2015/ P&L ACCOUNT BY ADMITTING T HE CLOSING WORK- ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: IN-PROGRESS OF EACH PROJECT, WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN DATED 27.02.2015 AND ASSURED TO PAY THE NECESSARY T AXES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SHIFTED THE SAME FROM EXPENSES TO WORK-IN-PROGRESS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT. IT WAS A SUBMISSION TH AT THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED B Y THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE PROJECTS WERE C OMPLETED, THE EXPENDITURE IN ENTIRETY HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURNS FOR CLAIMING THE SAID EXPENDI TURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION TH AT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD EARNE D THE INTEREST TO AN EXTENT OF ` 27,832/- AND THE SAME WAS OMITTED TO BE OFFERED BY OVERSIGHT AND SHOWN IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. CONSEQU ENTLY, IT HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT IT IS ONLY A CLERICAL MISTAKE AND THE SAME HAS NOW BEEN OFFERED AND TAX P AID THEREON. THE LD.A.R ALSO PLACED BEFORE US A COPY OF REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF PENALTY NOTICE WHICH IS SHOWN AT PAGES 1 04 TO 105 & 106- 107 OF PAPER BOOK, WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- V.K.C. JAVAMOHAN, 81/40W KUTCHECY ROAD, MYAPORE, CHENNAL - 600 004. ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 4 -: APRIL 15, 2015 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE I, CHENNAI. RESPECTED SIR, REF: MY OWN/PAN NO.ADA PJ 2642 Q A.Y, 2012-13. SUB: REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SEC 271 (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961-REG. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE I WISH TO SUBMIT THE FO LLOWING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I HAVE NOT WILLFULLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ETC., FOR THE ABOVE SAID ASSE SSMENT YEAR. I BELIEVED THAT MY ACCOUNTANT HAS DONE THE ACCOUNTI NG WORKS PROPERLY. DUE TO HER (I.E ACCOUNTS) ILL HEALTH SHE HAS FINISHED THE ACCO UNTING WORK DURING THE CLOSING DATE TO FIIE THE RETURN AND MY AUDITORS HAVE ALSO VERIFI ED THE ACCOUNTS AT THE LAST TIME AND CERTAIN ERRORS WERE NOT BEEN NOTICED BY THEM ALSO. I HAVE STARTED THE FLAT CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS DURIN G THE PERIOD. DUE TO INEXPERIENCE OF MY ACCOUNTANT SHE HAS NOT BROUGHT THE WORKING PR OGRESS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SHE HAS DEBITED ALL THE EXPENDITURE AND CR EDITED THE SALES MADE DURING THE YEAR TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE LOW PROFIT. AS SOON AS THE DEPARTMENT NOTICED THE LOW PROFIT I VOLUNTARY ACCEPTED MY ERROR (I.E. NOT CONSIDERED THE WORKING PROGRESS) AND REVISE THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME BY INCORPORATING THE WORKING PROGRESS ETC AND ACCEPTED TO PAY THE NECESSARY TAXES INCLUDING INTEREST WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE. THE OTHER DISALLOWANCE IS PROVISIONS OF PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTS WITHOUT TDS ETC., IN HIS REGARD I WISH TO SAY THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE M ADE DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH AND THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS WERE MADE SUBSEQUENT FINANC IAL YEAR AND AT THE TIME OF PAYMENTS MADE THE NECESSARY TDS WERE MADE I HAVE HONESTLY ADMITTED THE MISTAKE AND ACCEPTED T HE ADDITION WITH THE VIEW TO AIM THE EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 5 -: THE LAST DISALLOWANCE IS THE BANK INTEREST RS. 27,8 32/- BY OVERSIGHT THIS WAS OMITTED BY RNE. HENCE I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR NOTICE THAT ALL THE M ISTAKES WERE HAPPED DUE TO IGNORANCE BUT NOT A WILL FULL ONE. I HAVE BEEN CO-O PERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTERS OF FILING THE RETURNS AND PAYING THE TAXES IN TIME. HENCE I HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES AND DROP THE PROPOSED PENAL PROCEEDINGS. I ASSURE THAT I WILL NOT DO SUCH ERRORS SUBSEQUENTL Y. KINDLY DO THE NEEDFUL. THANKING YOU. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (V.K.C. JAYAMOHAN V.K.C. JAVAMOHAN, 81/40W KUTCHECY ROAD, MYAPORE, CHENNAL - 600 004. APRIL 23, 2015 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE I, CHENNAI. RESPECTED SIR, REF: MY OWN/PAN NO.ADA PJ 2642 Q A.Y, 2012-13. SUB: REPLY TO NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SEC 271 (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961-REG. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE I WISH TO SUBMIT THE FO LLOWING FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. I HAVE NOT WILLFULLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ETC., FOR THE ABOVE SAID ASSE SSMENT YEAR. ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 6 -: I BELIEVED THAT MY ACCOUNTANT HAS DONE THE ACCOUNTI NG WORKS PROPERLY. DUE TO HER (I.E ACCOUNTS) ILL HEALTH SHE HAS FINISHED THE ACCO UNTING WORK DURING THE CLOSING DATE TO FIIE THE RETURN AND MY AUDITORS HAVE ALSO VERIFI ED THE ACCOUNTS AT THE LAST TIME AND CERTAIN ERRORS WERE ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF AUDITO RS DUE TO PACUCITY OF TIME.. I HAVE STARTED THE FLAT CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS DURIN G THE PERIOD. DUE TO INEXPERIENCE OF MY ACCOUNTANT SHE HAS NOT BROUGHT THE WORKING PR OGRESS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SHE HAS DEBITED ALL THE EXPENDITURE AND CR EDITED THE SALES MADE DURING THE YEAR TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE LOW PROFIT. AS SOON AS THE DEPARTMENT NOTICED THE LOW PROFIT I VOLUNTARY ACCEPTED MY ERROR (I.E. NOT CONSIDERED THE WORKING PROGRESS) AND REVISE THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME BY INCORPORATING THE WORKING PROGRESS ETC AND ACCEPTED TO PAY THE NECESSARY TAXES INCLUDING INTEREST WHICHEVER IS APPLICABLE. THE OTHER DISALLOWANCE IS PROVISIONS OF PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTS WITHOUT TDS ETC., IN HIS REGARD I WISH TO SAY THAT THE PROVISIONS WERE M ADE DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH AND THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS WERE MADE SUBSEQUENT FINANC IAL YEAR AND AT THE TIME OF PAYMENTS MADE THE NECESSARY TDS WERE MADE I HAVE HONESTLY ADMITTED THE MISTAKE AND ACCEPTED T HE ADDITION WITH THE VIEW TO AIM THE EXPENDITURE IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE LAST DISALLOWANCE IS THE BANK INTEREST RS. 27,8 32/- BY OVERSIGHT THIS WAS OMITTED BY RNE. HENCE I WISH TO BRING TO YOUR NOTICE THAT ALL THE M ISTAKES WERE HAPPED DUE TO IGNORANCE BUT NOT A WILL FULL ONE. I HAVE BEEN CO-O PERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTERS OF FILING THE RETURNS AND PAYING THE TAXES IN TIME. HENCE I HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO CONSIDER THE CIRCUMST ANCES AND DROP THE PROPOSED PENAL PROCEEDINGS. I ASSURE THAT I WILL NOT DO SUCH ERRORS SUBSEQUENTL Y. KINDLY DO THE NEEDFUL. THANKING YOU. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (V.K.C. JAYAMOHAN ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 7 -: IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NEITHER CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT REJECTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOW N BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI (T) VS. CIT (2007) 2 92 ITR 11(SC) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED FOR BREACH OR CONTRAVENTION OF A COMMERCIAL STATUTE WHERE LACK OF INTENTION TO CONTRAVENE OR EXISTENCE OF BON A FIDES MAY NOT BE OF MUCH IMPORTANCE. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE PEN ALTY IS MANDATORILY IMPOSABLE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, NOT A CASE WHERE THE ENABLING PROVISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOKED . THE LD.A.R ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD., IN [2010] 322 ITR 158(SC) W HEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT: 9. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST EXIST BEFOR E THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WO ULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCU MENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILI TY WOULD ARISE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT [2007] 6 SCC 329****, THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE TERMS 'CONCEALMENT OF INCOME' AND 'FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THEREIN THAT IN ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 8 -: ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ), MENS REA WAS NECESSARY, AS ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE WORD 'INA CCURATE' SIGNIFIED A DELIBERATE ACT OR OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDE D FOR A DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO UGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT IT MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THEREOF. IT WAS POINT ED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WAS NOT DEFINED ANYWH ERE IN THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF AN A SSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BY ITSELF BE FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATION IS NOT ONLY NOT BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AN D MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS * [2009] 317 ITR 1 (SC). ** [2008]306 ITR 277(SC). *** [2010] 1 GSTR 66 (SC). **** [2007] 291 ITR 519 (SC). INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY HIM. IT WAS THEN HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION MUST BE PRECEDED BY A FINDING AS TO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE COURT ULTIMATELY WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE ELEME NT OF MENS REA WAS ESSENTIAL. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POINT OF MENS REA THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT* WAS UPSET . IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS**, AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTION 271 EXTENSIVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE SECTION 271(1)(C) INDICAT ED THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONCEALMEN T OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN, THERE W AS NO NECESSITY OF MENS REA. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE OBJECT IVE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATIO NS INDICATED WITH ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 9 -: THE SAID SECTION WAS FOR PROVIDING REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND SUCH A PENALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE , WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276 C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOI NT CIT WAS OVERRULED BY THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DHARAM ENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS2, WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COURT THE E FFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SECTION 27 6C OF THE ACT WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT1. HOWEVER, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT IN UNION OF INDIA V. DH ARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS**, NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING IN THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT*, WHERE THE COURT E XPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE ULTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. JOINT CIT1 TO THE EFFECT THAT MENS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF V. J OINT CIT* WAS OVERRULED. 10. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH T HE MENS REA. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS : 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT ; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH ; ERRONEOUS ; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRA NSCRIPT.' IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT MAY BE CANCELLED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE O RDERS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 10 - : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMI TTEDLY IN THE PRESENT CASE, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE IS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY CONCEALED PARTICULAR OF INCOME. IN FACT, THE DISALLOWANCE CLEARLY IS ONE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF ` 2,35,56,441/-, WHICH IS THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE IN CURRED, BUT IT HAS BEEN MOVED TO WORK IN PROGRESS AND IT HA S BEEN ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN QUESTIONED NOR DISPUTED. THE SECOND ISSUE IS IN REGARD TO CURRENT LIABILITIES IN THE BA LANCE SHEET IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE TDS HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED, BUT TDS DEDUCT ED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN DONE. THER EFORE, WE CANNOT SAY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THIS TDS. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF ` 27,832/-, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IT IN ITS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CATEGORICALLY POI NTED OUT IN HIS REPLY THAT THE MISTAKE WAS CAUSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE ACCOU NTANT. EVEN CONSIDERING THE FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCH A LARGE TURNOVER IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT EVEN TO ASSUME THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL OR AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX ON INTEREST INCOME AS ` 27,832/-. ALSO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUN D TO BE FALSE NOR HAS THE EXPLANATION BE DISPUTED. THIS BEING SO, IN VIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF ASHOK PAI (T) VS. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 1 1(SC) AND CIT VS. ITA NO.1876 /CHNY/2017 :- 11 - : RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD., IN [2010] 322 ITR 158(SC) EXTRACTED SUPRA, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT CANNOT BE SAID TH AT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH CAN GIVE CAUSE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS BEING SO, THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESPECT PENALTY L EVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT STANDS CANCELLED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 JANUARY, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ! '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) $ '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER - ' / CHENNAI . / DATED: 01 JANUARY, 2019. K S SUNDARAM / ' $(01 2 1( / COPY TO: 1 . ! / APPELLANT 3. & 3( () / CIT(A) 5. 145 $(6 / DR 2. $% ! / RESPONDENT 4. & 3( / CIT 6. 57 8' / GF