Sh Vikramaditya Singh, Jammu V. The Dy. Commissioner of Inocme-tax, Jammu

ITA 188/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 18820914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: TARSEM LAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Revised return
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH ; AMRITSAR (SMC) . BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMEBR ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 PAN:AZCPS4824P SH. VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, THE PALACE, JAMMU. CIRCLE-2, JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. P.N.ARORA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 11/09/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06/11/2015 ORDER THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09 AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF LEVY OF RS.1,38,202/- AS CONCEA LMENT PENALTY. 2. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS RETURN, HAD DECLARED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, LTCG AND STCG. THE INCOME SO D ECLARED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND STCG AND INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LTCG AMOUNTING TO RS.34,98,034/- WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT, AS SECURITY T RANSACTION TAX (STT) WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID THEREON. DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THAT STT WAS PAID ONLY O N AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,79,462/- AND NO SUCH STT WAS PAID ON THE REMA INING LTCG OF ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 2 RS.12,18,572/-. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE LAT TER AMOUNT OF LTCG WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SWITCHING OF THE SECURITIES AND THERE FORE, NO STT WAS DEDUCTED THEREON. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE W HOLE OF LTCG AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT, THE AO MADE AN ADDIT ION OF RS.12,18,572/- BEING THE LTCG ON WHICH THE STT WAS NOT PAID. THIS AMOUNT WAS HELD TO BE TAXABLE U/S 112 OF THE I.T.ACT. AN ADDITIONAL TAX I NCLUDING SURCHARGE AND CESS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,38,202/- WAS LEVIED VIDE ORD ER DATED 16.12.2010 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, ON QUERY, THE ASSESS EE FILED A REPLY, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PENALTY ORDER. IT READS AS FOLLOWS: THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT BEING LONG TERM ARE FREE OF TAX. THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE NOT SOLD BUT REDEEME D BY SWITCHING OVER. THAT FULL DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF INVESTMEN TS WERE PROVIDED IN THE RETURN. THAT THERE IS NO GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE PA RT OF THE ASSESSEE IN MAKING THE CLAIM OF BEING NON TAXABLE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT MAKING A WR ONG CLAIM DO NOT BY ITSELF CALL FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WHEN ALL T HE PARTICULARS WERE GIVEN. THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT MANDATORY. PENALTY MUST BE GROUNDED ON CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND CALLOUS INDIFF ERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WILLFUL NON-COMPLIANCE OF REQ UIREMENTS OF STATUTE [SEE 83 ITR 26 (SC)]. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAV ING DECLARED HIS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, THOUGH PART OF THE SAME BECOME TAXABLE ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF STT, THERE IS NO WILLFU L NON-COMPLIANCE OF PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, IT IS PRAYED THA T THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION BE ACCEPTED AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BE FILED AND NO PENALTY LEVIED. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 3 4. THE A.O. LEVIED THE PENALTY, HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 3A. ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DUL Y CONSIDERED. THE INVESTMENTS AS CLAIMED WERE MADE THROUGH INVEST MENT BANKERS AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAD MORE PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT IN THESE DEALINGS. IT DOES NOT MATTER EVEN IF THE INVESTMENT S WERE NOT REDEEMED BECAUSE THE SWITCHING OVER ITSELF MEANS SALE OF EXI STING INVESTMENTS AND PURCHASE OF FRESH ONES IN THE SAME TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SAYS THAT THERE WAS NO GROSS OR WILLFUL NE GLECT. THIS IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE KNOW THAT ON PA RT OF ITS SALES, STT WAS NOT DEDUCTED AND THE LTCG ARISING THERE FROM WA S COVERED U/S 112 OF THE ACT. THIS ALSO SHOWS THE INDIFFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW WHICH THE ASSESSEE ITSELF ADMITS IS A GROUND FO R IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGLY CLAIMED EXEMPTI ON ON THE WHOLE OF LTCG. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND T O WORK OUT THE CORRECT INCOME FOR TAXATION PURPOSE WHICH IT DID NO T DO. 4. IN VIEW OF FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE UNDERSIGN ED IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME AS PROVIDED U/S 271(1)(C) OF I.T.ACT, 1961. TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS RS.1,38,302/-. PENALTY IMPOSABLE U NDER THIS SECTION IS A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN BUT WHICH SH ALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE, PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.1,38,302/- IS IMPOSED WHICH IS 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADE D. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY, HO LDING AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FIND TH AT MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR A CIVIL LIABILITY OF PENALTY. PENALTI ES UNDER FISCAL STATUES ARE FOR BREACH OF CIVIL LIABILITIES AND THEREFORE W ILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL L IABILITIES; UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, 306 ITR 277 (SC). IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT IS HAVING O NLY SOURCE OF INCOME AS INTEREST AND CAPITAL GAINS AND THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT PLEA IGNORANCE ON ACCOUNT OF OMISSION OR INADVERTENT MISTAKE WHILE MAKING SUCH A WRONG CLAIM. THE APPELLANT HAS SIGNED THE RETURN AN D COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHILE MAKING SUCH CLAIM UNDER LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. IT IS NOT AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 4 EVEN WHERE THE INCORRECTNESS OF THE RETURN IS CLAI MED DUE TO WANT OF CARE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO REASON ABLE EXPLANATION FOR SUCH WANT OF CARE, INFER DELIBERATENESS AND TREAT I T AS A FALSE RETURN (CEMENT MARKETING COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. VS. ACIT C OMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX AND OTHERS (SC) 124 ITR 15).THERE ARE UMP TEEN NUMBER OF JUDGMENTS WHERE BOGUS CLAIM WHEN DETECTED, HAVE BEE N TREATED AS INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EVEN BOGUS CLAIM O F DEDUCTION IN RETURNS PREPARED BY AUDITOR HAD BEEN OVERRULED AND PENALTY UPHELD. KUTTO KARAN MACHINE TOOLS VS. ACIT (KER) 313 ITR 4 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE EXCESS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DETECTED BY THE AO AND THE ADMISSI ON OF EXCESS CLAIM WAS NOT VOLUNTARY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS AS UNDER: 1. WRONG CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS WHICH WERE E X-FACIE INADMISSIBLE- PENALTY UPHELD. [ ANAND AND ANAND VS. ACIT (2010) TOIL -592- ITAT(D EL)] 2. FALSE CLAIM MADE U/S 80I AFTER EXPIRY OF THE ELI GIBLE PERIOD FOR SUCH DEDUCTION PENALTY UPHELD. [MODEL FOOTWEAR PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, ITAT (DEL) 124 ITD 353 3. ASSESSEE CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80-O ON INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON FD IN INDIA AMOUNTS TO FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS PENALTY UPHELD. [ACIT VS. SURINDER PAL CHOPRA ITAT (DEL) 2 ITR (TR IB.) 790 THE APPELLANT HAS A RIGHT TO FILE A REVISED RETURN, IF HE DISCOVERS ANY OMISSION OF WRONG STATEMENT IN HIS RETURN BEFOR E THE ASSESSMENT MADE. IF THE TIME FOR REVISING RETURN WA S NOT AVAILABLE IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS AT THE FIRST INSTANCE BEFORE THE DETECT ION BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THIS INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME WAS D ETECTED AS A RESULT OF INQUIRY BY THE AO AND HENCE THE PENALTY I S LEVIABLE. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONTESTED THE QUANTUM ADDITION BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I UPHELD THE PENALTY OF RS.1,38,202/-. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 5 6. BEFORE ME, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT AS PER THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME (COPY PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE APB), SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES SOLD AMOUNTED TO RS.38,24,235/- , THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS.38,36,953/- AND THE LOSS TO BE CARRIED OVER WAS OF RS.12,718/-. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE DETAILS OF THESE ITEMS ARE CONTAINED AT APB-6, SHOWN UNDER SHORT-TERM LOSS. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT APB 1 TO 2 CONTAIN A COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSION DATED 16.01.2014 FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED , AS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, HAD DECLARED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN; THAT THE INCOME DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND SHOR T-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO R S.34,98,034/- WAS CLAIMED EXEMPT, AS SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID THEREON; THAT THE AO FOUND THAT STT WAS PAID O NLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.22,79,462/-, WHEREAS THE STT HAD NOT BEEN PAID O N THE REMAINING LTCG OF RS.12,18,572/-; THAT THE LTCG OF RS.12,18,572/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SWITCHING OF THE SECURITIES; THAT IT WAS, THEREFORE , THAT NO STT WAS DEDUCTED THEREON; THAT THE NON-DEDUCTION OF STT WAS ON ACCOU NT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS , BEING LONG TERM INVESTMENTS, ARE FREE OF TAX; THAT THE INVESTMENTS IN QUESTION WERE NOT SOLD, ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 6 BUT WERE REDEEMED BY SWITCHING OVER; THAT THE FULL DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF INVESTMENTS WERE PROVIDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED; THAT THERE WAS NO GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE ASSESSEES P ART IN MAKING THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BEING NOT TAXABLE; THAT MA KING OF A WRONG CLAIM DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, CALL FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY , WHERE ALL THE PARTICULARS ARE GIVEN; THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY MUST BE GROUNDE D ON CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT AND CALLOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND WILLFUL NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE ; THAT LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT MANDATORY, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DECLAR ED HIS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, THOUGH PART OF THE SAME BECAME TAXA BLE ON ACCOUNT OF NON- DEDUCTION OF STT, THERE WAS NO WILLFUL NON-COMPLIAN CE OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY THAT THERE WAS AN I NADVERTENT MISTAKE IN THE RETURN. 7. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT A WRONG CLAIM DOES NOT INVITE PENALTY, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SOUGHT TO PLACE RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWI NG CASE LAWS: I) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC) II) CIT VS. BAL KISHAN DHAWAN HUF, 86CCH 065 (P& H) III) CIT VS. THE SHAHABAD CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS LTD. , 322 ITR 73 (P&H). COPIES OF THESE DECISIONS HAVE BEEN FILED. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 7 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, DULY SUPPORTING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE COPY OF COMPUTATION OF IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE, NO MENTION HAS BEEN MADE OF THE SECURITIES HAVING BEEN REDEEMED BY SWITCHING OVER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE TOTAL TAX WA S WRONGLY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT; THAT, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LE VIED QUA THE AMOUNT ON WHICH STT WAS NOT PAID AND THIS WAS NOT DECLARED. R ELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUP RA), TO CONTEND THAT SINCE THE AO HAS CORRECTLY REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS, THOUGH KNOWING THIS IS TO BE INCORRECT, IT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS THEREOF; THAT AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY OR IN AN EXAGGER ATED AMOUNT CLAIMED, WHICH AMOUNTS TO ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCO ME, WHICH, IN TURN, AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONES INCO ME, AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS ARE PATENT ON RECORD. THE ISSU E IS AS TO WHETHER BY CLAIMING AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,18,572/-, REPRESENTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ON WHICH STT WAS NOT PAID, AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF HIS INCOME WITHIN ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 8 THE MEANING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. IN THIS REGARD, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN C IT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), HAS HELD THAT MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS PER THIS DECISION, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A DEDUCTION WHI CH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HE LD THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD WERE TO BE ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN EVERY CASE , WHERE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REA SON, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, AS IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SU STAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN TH EMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS UPTO THE ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 9 AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NO T. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT, BY ITSELF, WOU LD NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. APROPOS RELIANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RELIANC E PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE SAME IS ENTIRELY UNCALLED FOR. T HE VERY ARGUMENTS STRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENT HERE WERE NOT AGREED TO BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT AND FOR THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED AL L THE DETAILS FOR ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, NOR COULD BE VIEWE D AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE ASSESSEES PART, AS HELD BY THEIR LOR DSHIPS. 11. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), HAS BEEN REFERRED AND CONSIDERED IN CIT VS. BAL KISHAN DHAWAN HUF, 86 C CH 065 (P&H). IN THIS LATTER DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD., 327 ITR 510(DEL. ), HAS ALSO BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF AN ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES OR ON ACCOUNT O F WHOSE MISTAKE, DEDUCTIONS WERE CLAIMED, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO RAISING A MALAFIDE CLAIM THAT WOULD INVITE A PENALTY. THIS WAS AGREED TO IN BAL KISHAN DHAWAN HUF (SUPRA). HOWEVER, ON FACTS, CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICA TION PVT. LTD. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 10 (SUPRA), WAS HELD TO BE NOT APPLICABLE. HERE ALSO, FIRSTLY, ALL NECESSARY PARTICULARS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, AS NOTICED. THEN, IT WAS A CASE WHERE, UNLIKE HEREIN , THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH, OR THE MIST AKE ON WHOSE COUNT, THE WRONG CLAIM WAS MADE. 12. FURTHER, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT , IN CIT VS. THE SHAHABAD CO-OP. SUGAR MILLS (SUPRA), HAS HELD THA T MAKING OF WRONG CLAIM IS NOT AT PAR WITH CONCEALMENT OR GIVING OF INACCUR ATE INFORMATION, WHICH MAY CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 13. FOR THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, FINDING FORCE IN THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THE L EVY OF PENALTY, AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS, HENCE, SET ASIDE AN D CANCELLED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6TH NOVEM BER, 2015. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER /SKR/ DATED: 06/11/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SHRI VIKRAMADITYA SINGH, JAMMU. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCE-2, JAMMU. 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, ASR. ITA NO.188(ASR)/2014 11 TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR)