Shri Baldevbhai Atmaram Patel, Gandhinagar V. The Dy.CIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar

ITA 1911/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6106 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 29-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: D K PARIKH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Cost of acquisition; Tangible material; Wrong claim; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 271(1)(c); 54B; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1911/AHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL 143, HANUMAN VAS, MOTERA GAM, GANDHINAGAR. VS. DY. CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR. [PAN NO. AUOPP 1763 B] ( APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. K. PARIKH, A. R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D. R. DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/01/2019 O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.04.2015 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD ARISING WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 14.0 8.2014 ISSUED BY THE DCIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 TO THE TUNE OF RS.36,00,000/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 01.09.2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,95,000/-. THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 30.11.2010 AT A CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,15,50,000/ - AFTER CONVERTING INTO NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE THE SALE ON 22.11.2010. TH E COST CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF - 2 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 RS.5,75,700/- INCLUDING LEGAL AND TRANSFER FEES. AG AINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN LIABILITY, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN FOLLOWING INVESTM ENT IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION. SN INVESTMENT MADE BENEFIT CLAIMED 1 INVESTED RS.20,65,100/- FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND AT SARGASAN, SALE DEED NO.21445 DATED 29.12.2010. EXEMPTION U/S. 54B 2 INVESTED RS.1,85,33,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FO R CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, SALE DEED NO.1382 DATED 15.02.2012. EXEMPTION U/S. 54F 3 INVESTED RS.1,26,90,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT (O NLY BOOKING AMOUNT, NO SALE DEED EXECUTED) EXEMPTION U/S. 54F 4 COST OF CONSTRUCTION OR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE RS.23,00,471/- EXEMPTION U/S. 54F THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B SINCE AVAILABLE WHERE TH E CAPITAL GAIN IS ARISING TO AN ASSESSEE FOR THE TRANSFER OF ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND, PRIMA FACIE THE LEARNED AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO SUCH CLAIM U/S 54B FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON THAT THE LAND SO SOLD WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL ONE, THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO A NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE TRANSFERRING IT ON 30.11.2 010 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE SHOW-CAUSE FAILED TO SUBMIT THAT AGRIC ULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE BEING CARRIED OUT FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS PRIOR TO SALE AND ONE YEA R FROM THE DATE OF SALE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER, THE BENEFIT AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 54B WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER. DURING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED FOLLOWING BENEFITS U/S 54F . INVESTED RS.1,85,33,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE EXEMPTION U/S 54F INVESTED RS.1,26,90,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT EXEMPTION U/S 54F COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF RS.23,00,471/- EXEMPTION U/S 54F SECTION 54F PROVIDES THAT CAPITAL GAIN IS EXEMPT IF THE SALE PROCEEDS INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN ONE YEAR B EFORE OR 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF - 3 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 TRANSFER OF SUCH AN ASSET OR IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. HOWEVER, SUCH BENEF IT IS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE EVENT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONE HOUSE PROPERTY OTHER THAN TH E NEW ASSET, AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS PARTICU LAR CASE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE INVESTED RS.1,85,33,000/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BUT THE ASSES SEE IS ALREADY HAVING ONE HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT AHMEDABAD. IN TERMS OF SECTION 54F SINCE THE SALE PROCEEDS HAVE TO BE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OR CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE AS ALREADY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE BENEFITS OF SECTION 54F HAVE ALSO BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT FULFILLING THE CRITERIA UNDER THE SAID STAT UTORY PROVISIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED RS.1,26,90,000/- TO P URCHASE A FLAT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH NEW ASSET IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND ON RECORD WHERE THE TITLE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED UPON HIM BY A SALE DEED RATHER IT APPEA RED THAT THE ASSESSEE BOOKED MULTIPLE FLATS. THE DETAILS WHEREOF WAS PROVIDED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HENCE, HIS CLAIM U/S 54F AS DISCU SSED ABOVE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LEARNED AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO PROVE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE INCURRING COS T OF RS.23,00,471/- EXCEPT PRODUCING A FEW BILLS. SUCH CLAIM THUS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND ULT IMATELY REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 13.04.20 12 AS AGAINST THE DUE DATE OF 31.07.2011 THUS THE RETURN FILED WAS AFTER THE STIP ULATED TIME. IN FACT, THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED EVEN AFTER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(4). ASSESSEE FILED LATE RETURN, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTI ON U/S 54F, 54B RATHER HE HAS SHOWN ONLY NET CAPITAL GAIN. SUCH BENEFITS WERE ALSO DENI ED TO HIM. FURTHER THAT, WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSEE SHOWN TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,66,249/- TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE OL D ASSET WHICH HAS BEEN SOLD. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE REGARDING PAYMEN T DETAILS OR COPY OF CASH BOOK, ETC. THE SAME WAS REJECTED. IN THE RESULT, RS.3,59,54,82 0/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE - 4 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 ASSESSEE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN UNDER PENALTY PR OCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS BEEN INITIATED ON THE PREMISE FOR CONCEALMENT OF PA RTICULARS OF HIS INCOME LEADING TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE DISA LLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B AND 54F AND/OR THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEA RNED AO. 4. THE LEARNED AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING ISSUED A SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ON 28.01.2014 AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHOULD N OT BE IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT NONE HAS ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY EXPLANATION AND/OR RETURN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE LEA RNED AO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING. THE SAME IS REBUTTED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE COPY OF THE SAID EXPLANA TION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO DATED 21.03.2014 WAS ALSO ANNEXED TH ERETO AS EXHIBIT B. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED AO, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED WITH THE SAID PENA LTY PROCEEDING AND ULTIMATELY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.36,00,000/- WITH THE FOLLOWIN G OBSERVATION: 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,70,55,571/-. THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 5. SECTION 271(1)(C) IS ATTRACTED WHERE, THE ASSES SING OFFICER OR THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS SATISFIED THAT (A) ANY PERSO N HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, OR (B) HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE EXPRESSION 'HAS CONCEALED' AND 'HAS FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS' HAVE NOT BEEN DEFINED IN EITHER THE SECTION OR ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT. HOWEVER, NOTWITHSTANDING DIFFERENCES IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HEY LEAD TO THE SAME EFFECT, VIZ., KEEPING OFF A CERTAIN PORTION OF INCOME. THE FORMER IS DIRECT WHILE THE LATTER MAY BE INDIRECT IN ITS EXECUTION. THE WORD 'CONCEAL' IS DERIVED FROM LATIN WORD 'CONCELARE' WHICH IMPLIES 'TO HIDE'. IN WEBSTER'S N EW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, THE WORD HAS BEEN EQUATED 'TO HIDE OR WITHDRAW FROM OBSERVATION; TO COVER OR KEEP FROM SIGHT; TO PREVENT DISCOVERY OF; TO WITHHO LD KNOWLEDGE OF. THERE MAY BE - 5 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 CASES WHERE THE FACTS MAY ATTRACT BOTH THE OFFENCES , AND IN SOME CASES THERE MAY BE OVERLAPPING OF THE TWO OFFENCES. 6. IN THE REPORTED CASE OF R K BROTHERS (2003) 87 ITD 649 (ALL) IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT WHEN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS APPARENT FR OM RECORD, PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED EVEN ON BASIS OF ESTIMATE OF INCOME. IN THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL, DATED 17.7.2009, REPORTED IN 285 D TK AHD (TM)(TRIB) 380 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE FACT OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN SOME OF THE YEARS MAY HAVE BEEN DROPPED, WAS NOT OF MATERIAL CONSIDERATION. TH E PLEA THAT MENS REA HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, FOLLOWING THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDER TEXTILE 219 CTR 617 ., THIS DECISION ALSO UPHOLDS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 271(1)(C). 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C). I HEREBY LEVY THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE COMPUTATION OF PENALTY IS AS UNDER: (A) AMOUNT OF INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. RS. 1,70,55,571/- (B) AMOUNT OF TAX EVADED. RS. 35,13,448/- (C) PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1 )(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AT THE RATE OF 100% OF TAX EVADED. RS. 35,13,448/- (D) PENALTY U/S.271(1 )(C) AT THE RATE OF 300% OF TAX EVADED. RS. 1,05,40,344/- 8. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE A LUMP SUM PENALTY OF RS. 36,00,0007- (RS. THIRTY SIX LACS ONL Y) IMPOSED AS AGAINST MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE OF RS. 1,05,40,344/- AT THE RATE, 300% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 5. IN APPEAL THE ORDER OF IMPOSING PENALTY WAS CONF IRMED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 5.1 APPELLANT WAS ARGUED THAT AO HAS WRONGLY OBSE RVED THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION TO JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH RENDERS ENTIRE PENALTY UNDER ORDER INVALID. THE APP ELLANT HAS FURNISHED FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS: - 6 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF YOUR DATED 28.01.2014 U/S 14 3(3) SERVED ON 30.01.2014 ALONG WITH A NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT THAT THERE IS NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE NOTICE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BECAUSE OF SOME DISALLOWANCES/ADDI TION MADE DURING ASSESSMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED WITH RESPECT THAT ALL P ARTICULARS WERE TRULY AND FULLY FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT BUT THE DISALLOWANCES/ADDITIONS IS MADE ERRONEOUSLY WHICH I S NOT ACCEPTED BY US. MERELY BECAUSE ANY DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION IS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE SAME CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE MAY HOWEVER, MENTION THAT WE HAVE PREFERRED AN A PPEAL AGAINST AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION BEFORE HONBLE CIT( APPEALS) WHEREIN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY YOUR GOODS SELF HAVE BEEN CHALL ENGED. COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE APPEAL FILED IS ATTACHED HER EWITH. . THUS, IT CAN BE SUMMARIZED THAT - (I) APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION FOR CAPITAL GAIN U/ S 54B FOR RS 20,65,100/- ON LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR EVEN THOUG H SUCH LAND WAS CONVERTED INTO NON AGRICULTURE LAND AND APPELLANT H AS NOT PROVED THAT LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE BEFORE TWO YEARS TI LL DATE OF TRANSFER. THE FACTS PROVE THAT APPELLANT HAS MADE CLAIM WHICH IS FALSE AND NOT COVERED BY DEFINITION OF EXEMPTION PROVIDED IN THE ACT. (II) AS THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY CLAIMED EXEMPTION IN R ESPECT INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF PLOT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW ASSET I.E. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION FOR ANOTHER HOUSE U/S 54F OF THE ACT, STILL APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED IT IN RETURN OF INCOME WHICH PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT APPELLANT HAS WILLFULLY CLAIMED HIGHER EXEMPTI ON WHICH ARE NOT PROVIDED IN INCOME TAX ACT. (III) THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED COST OF ' CONSTRUCTION OF RS.23,00,471/- WHILE CONSIDERING EXEMPTION U/S 54F BUT HAS FAILED TO PRO VE COGENT EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM. THE FACTS DISCUSSED HEREIN ABOVE PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT APPELLANT HAS FALSE CLAIM NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BONAFIDE BELIEF. T HE DEDUCTION U/S 54F AND 54B WERE CLAIMED WHICH WERE CONTRARY TO EXPRESS PROVISI ONS OF THE ACT AND APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH COGENT E VIDENCES THE HON'BLE MUMBAI - 7 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 ITAT IN THE CASE OF S.H.R. TRADING PVT LIMITED V/S DOT 150 ITD 383 HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 271(L)(C), READ WITH SECTION 54, OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALTY - FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME (DISALLOWANCE O F CLAIM, EFFECT OF) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - ASSESSEE-COMPANY FILED IT S RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ASSESSING OFFI CER REJECTED ASSESSEE'S CLAIM HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE, BEING A COMPANY, WAS N OT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 - HE ALSO PASSED A PENAL TY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR RAISING A PATENTLY FALSE CLAIM OF DED UCTION - WHETHER, ON FACTS, IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DID NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFER ENCE - HELD, YES [PARA 5] [IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE] ' THE HON'BLE MUMBAI ITAT AFTER CONSIDERING TH E DECISION OF RELIANCE PETROCHEMICALS RELIED UPON BY APPELLANT HAS FURTHER HELD AS UNDER: 'IN OUR OPINION THERE IS A BASIC AND FUNDAMENTAL DI FFERENCE BETWEEN A DEBATABLE CLAIM AND AN INADMISSIBLE CLAIM I.E. A PA TENTLY WRONG OR FALSE CLAIM, IN THE CASE OF FIRST KIND OF CLAIM THERE CAN BE TWO OPINION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE SUCH A CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN FACTS OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR. PROVISIONS OF THE AC T DO NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUCH CLAIM. BUT , IN THE SECOND TYPE OF CLAIM THERE IS CLEAR AND EMPHATIC BAR IN THE ACT-ASSESSEE ARE NOT EN TIL LED TO CLAIM SUCH EXPEND IT U RE/DEDUCT ION/RE BATE/EXEMPTION. ABSENCE OF 3 VALID BASIS FOR MAKING ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, RESULTING IN LOW TAX OR NO TAX, IS LIKE GOING AGAINST THE LETTER AND SPIRIT OF THE LAW. IN OTHER WORDS, C LAIMS MADE UNDER THE SECOND CATEGORY HAVE NO LEGS OF THEIR OWN TO STAND, BECAUSE SUCH CLAIMS ARE TENABLE NEITHER LEGALLY NOR -FACTUALLY. COURTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT DISPUTABLE CLAIMS AND INADMISSIBLE CLAIMS AR9 TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY. AN ASSESSEE MAKING A BLATANTLY INADMISSIBLE CLAIM IS L IKE A CAR DRIVER WHO CROSSES THE RED LIGHT AT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND TAK ES A CHANCE OF NOT BEING CAUGHT AND NOT BEING PENALIZED BY THE AUTHORITIES I MPLEMENTING LAW. A PERSON TAKING RISK OF NOT OBEYING THE LAW OF LAND H AS TO BE VISITED BY PENAL PROVISIONS WE ARE AWARE THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE SHOU LD NOT BE SOURCE OF REVENUE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ESSENTIAL TO DE TER THE ASSESSEES WHO INTERPRET THE ACT IN THE MANNER THEY WANT AND DEPRI VE THE STATE OF ITS DUE TAXES. FEAR OF LONG HANDS OF STATE CATCHING THE WRO NG DOERS IS ONE OF THE PRECONDITION OF SMOOTH IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROVIS IONS OF LAW. INVOKING PENAL PROVISION AND IMPOSING EXEMPLARY PENALTY HAS BECOME NECESSARY AS - 8 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 MOST OF THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BEING ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT SCRUTINY. A DUTY HAS BEEN CAST U PON THE CITIZENS TO MAKE ONLY AND ONLY LEGITIMATE CLAIMS. COURTS ARE VERY LI BERAL WHEN ANY DEBATABLE OR LEGITIMATE CLAIM IS MADE, BUT ARE VERY HARSH WHEN A CLAIM IS MADE THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT ALL. PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO.S IN SUCH CASES HAVE BEEN INVARIABLY UPHELD.' 5.4 IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HARPARSHAD AND CO. LTD. [2010] 328 ITR 53, HON'BIE DELHI HIGH. COURT HAS GONE ONE STEP FURTHER AND HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS, BUT ON THE BASIS THEREOF THE CLAIM WHICH IS MADE IS EX FACIE BOGUS, IT MAY STILL ATTRACT PENALTY PROVISION. IN THAT MATTER A BOGUS CLAIM TO DEDUCTIO N ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID TO DIRECTOR WAS MADE BY THE COMPANY THOUGH THE PERSON TO WHOM COMMISSION PAID WAS NOT DIRECTOR OF COMPANY AT RELEVANT TIME. IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO SERVICES WERE RENDERED BY HER . PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HON'B LE COURT HELD AS UNDER 'THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION I N RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,83,078 AND IT COULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONC EALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF, BY VIRTUE OF THIS EXPLANATION. THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELE TING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE RELEVANT AND HA VE PROBATIVE VALUE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES NO FRESH EVIDENCE OR PR ESENTS ANY ADDITIONAL OR FRESH CIRCUMSTANCE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HE WO ULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PLACED ON HIM AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY COULD BE JUSTIFIED. IT IS SAID THAT THE EXPLANATIONS APPENDED TO SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ENTIRELY INDICATE THE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY O N THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALMENT OR FOR GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETU RN. COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE OBJECT BEHIND ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ W ITH THE EXPLANATIONS INDICATE THAT THE SECTION HAS BEEN ENACTED TO PROVIDE, FOR A REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE, THAT THE PENALTY UNDER THAT PROVISION, IS A CIVIL LIABIL ITY, THAT WILLFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABIL ITY AS IS THE CASE IN THE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. - 9 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 5.5 REFERENCE IS ALSO DRAWN TO DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. HCIL KALINDEE ... [2013] 37 TAXMANN.COM 347 (DELHI) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'SECTION 271(1)(C), READ WITH SECTION 80-1A, OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PENALTY - FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME [WRONG CLAIM UN DER SECTION 80-IA] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 - ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 80- IA WAS REJECTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS EXECUTING WORKS CONTRACT - ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IMPOSED PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) - TRIBUNAL DELETED PENALTY HOLDING THAT C LAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-1A WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN PRESCRIBED FORM AND, HENCE, BONA FIDE - WHETHER MER ELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH STATUTORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT OF F ILING PRESCRIBED FORM AND CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, IT COULD N OT ABSOLVE ASSESSEE OF ITS LIABILITY, IF ACT OR ATTEMPT IN CLAIMING DEDUCTION WAS NOT BONA FIDE - HELD, YES - WHETHER TO SHOW AND ESTABLISH BONA FIDES, ASS ESSEE HAD TO SHOW SOME MORE 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' OR BASIS AS TO WHY A CLEAR STATUTORY PROVISION WHICH EXCLUDES WORKS CONTRACT WAS IGNORED - HELD, Y ES - WHETHER SINCE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT IT HAD ACTED BONA FIDELY, DELETION OF PENALTY BY TRIBUNAL WAS UNJUSTIFIED - H ELD, YES [PARAS 10, 11 & 13] [IN FAVOUR OR REVENUE)' THE FACTS IN PRESENT CASE CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT APPE LLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM F OR DEDUCTION U/S 54F, 54B OR COST OF ACQUISITION AND CLAIM WAS CONTRARY TO PROVI SIONS OF THE ACT HENCE IT IS HELD THAT AO IS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.36,00 ,000/-U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THEREFORE REJECT ED. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT FIRSTLY, THE ASSE SSEE DULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED AO ON 21.03.2014 THAT THERE WAS NO CASE OF CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME EVER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TOTALLY IGNORED AND NOT CONSIDER ED BY THE LEARNED AO. IN FACT, WHEN THE SAME FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEAR NED CIT(A), HE DID NOT GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION ON THE SAME NEITHER THE SAME WAS DEAL T BY HIM IN THE ORDER IMPUGNED. ON THAT SCORE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASH ED FOR VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. APART FROM THAT FACTUALLY THERE WAS NO CON CEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. - 10 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 NEITHER THE EXPLANATION RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOUND TO BE FALSE. THE ASSES SEE WITH BONAFIDE BELIEF SUBMITTED THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO HIS CLAIM OF EXEMP TION U/S 54B AND 54F BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THERE IS NO CONCEA LMENT OF INCOME, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AR, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) CANN OT BE APPLIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS ALLEGED OR AT ALL. THE LEARNED AO ALSO RE LIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE MATTER OF LEARNED CIT-VS- RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS, REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158. RELIANCE WERE ALSO PLACED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH IN ITA NO.1457/DEL/2010 AND T HE CO-ORDINATE BENCH PASSED A JUDGMENT IN ITA NO.164/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2004-05. O N THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD AND THUS PENA LTY CAN BE IMPOSED EVEN ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE OF INCOME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES, WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE GROUND OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME LEADING TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED A SHOW -CAUSE NOTICE ON 28.01.2014 DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS TO WHY PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON HIM FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE LEARNED AO IN HIS ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT IN RESPONSE OF THE SAI D SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE NO ONE ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY EXPLANATION AND/OR RETURN SUBMISSION AND/OR ADJOURNMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE HE WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF AND OP INION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17,55,571/- AND THUS IMP OSED LUMP SUM PENALTY OF RS.36,00,000/- UPON THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EVIDENT FRO M THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A REPRESENTATION AND/ OR EXPLANATION ON 21.03.2014 BEFORE - 11 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 THE LEARNED AO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING ANNEXE D WITH THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION SO TENDERED SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS EXIBITE-B. WE FIND NO DELIBERATION ON THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A). PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ACCORDING TO US, DELIBERATELY BEEN VIOLATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ORDER TO IMPOSE PENALTY. THE SAME DEPICTS CLOSE MINDNESS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE SAME IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ON THIS REGARD, THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AR PASSED BY TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BY US. IN THE SIMIL AR SITUATION THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE: 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE OF PENALTY BEFORE US, IT I S SEEN THAT THE EXPLANATION THAT WAS TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IGNORED AND NOT CO NSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER U/S. 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACT S AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY CANNOT BE UPHELD. EVEN ON MER ITS THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS LOSSES TO BE CARRI ED FORWARD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3.73 LACS AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT (A)'S ORDER . IN SUCH A CASE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SLN TRADERS (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED TO HAVE CONCEALED INCOME SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW OF TH IS MATTER, THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY IS DELETED. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. IN THAT CASE THE ORDER IMPUGNED IS A PRODUCT OF ARB ITRARINESS IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND THE DISCRETION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EXE RCISED JURISDICTIONALLY AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT-VS-SCIENTIFIC CHEMICALS (2005) 198 CTR 665 (GUJ) AS PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. APART FROM THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)( C) READS AS FOLLOWS: ' 271 . (1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY P ROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON - 12 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF [SUCH INCOME, OR EXPLANATION 1.WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERI AL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR O FFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE A ND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPE CT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED.' THUS IT CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT IN ORDER TO IMPOSE PUNISHMENT U/S 271(1)(C), THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST HAVE SATISFACTION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF S UCH INCOME. WHILE IMPOSING PUNISHMENT SUCH SATISFACTION AND/OR PROPOSITION AND /OR BELIEF MUST BE ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR FACTS AND/OR CORROBORATING EVIDENCE AND/OR CO NDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECOR DS THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL PARTICULARS WITH BONAFID E BELIEF, NO SUCH DISCLOSURE WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME BY NOT SHOWING SUCH INCOME IN ITS RETURN OR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSE E DID NOT HIDE ANY INCOME SO MENTIONED IN HIS RETURN, THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE AGRICU LTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CLAIMED U/S 54F REGARDING INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE, INVESTM ENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT OR COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS DULY DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN AND THE CORROBORATING EVIDENCES WERE ALSO PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, - 13 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME EVER FOUND BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE PRIMARY FACT WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE RELATING TO HIS CLAIM. MERELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON BONAFIDE BELIEF OF TH E APPELLANT, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE INCOME WAS CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICU LARS WERE FURNISHED. SINCE, THE CLAIM WAS REJECTED AS NOT TENABLE DOES NOT EMPOWER THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES TO LEVY THE PENALTY. WE REPEAT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS, INFORMATION AND EXPLANATION REGARDING HIS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION DURING ASSESSMENT. NO INFORMATION OR DETAILS WERE WITHHELD FROM THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT CAN BE A WRONG CLAIM, BUT ACCORDING TO US, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FALSE. ME RELY BECAUSE THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON BONAFIDE INTERPRETATION AND BELIEF OF THE APPELLANT IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT INCOME WAS CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS FURNISHED. THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON ON THIS RATIO HAS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158 (SUPRA) SQUARELY COVERED IN THE INSTANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THAT, THE APPELLANT BEING BASICAL LY AN AGRICULTURIST HAD FILED ITS RETURN BASED ON THE ASSISTANCE OF THE TAX PRACTITIONER SIN CE ALL INCOME AND SALES VALUES WERE DULY DISCLOSED, THERE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ANY CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE NEITHER IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE PARTICULARS WERE INACCURATE. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTION AFTER DISCLOSING THE INCOME AND UNDER THE IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISION OF ACT 1961 AND NOT OFFERED THAT AMOUNT FOR TAX IN SUCH CASE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. RATHER IT IS TH E DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASK FOR FURTHER DETAILS AND TAX INCOME IF IT IS LIABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE SAME RATIO HAS ALSO BEEN UPHEL D BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRAPAL BAGGA-VS-ITAT REPORTED IN 261 ITR 67 (RA J) . FINALLY, WE OBSERVE THAT THOUGH THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND NOT TENABLE UNDER THE STATUTE IT ULTIMATELY DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE OF DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME RATHER IT IS A CASE OF BONAFIDE CONTESTING C LAIM OF EXEMPTION AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTE R, WE ARE OF THE OPINION TO DELETE THE - 14 - ITA NOS.1911/AHD/2015 SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEAR 2011-12 PENALTY IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED AO AS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HENCE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS QUASHED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24/01/2019 SD/- SD/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( MS. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 24/01/2019 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. () / THE CIT(A)-GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD. 5. , ! ' , #$%% / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. &' () / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !, #$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 09/01/2018 & 21.01.2019 (DICTAT ION PAGES 16) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10/01/2019 & 22/01/2019 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 23/01/2019 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER