Vijay Kumar Bhagchandji Lodha, Malegaon V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1999/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9351 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO S . 1998 & 1999 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 8 - 09 & 2009 - 10 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHANDJI LODHA, LODHA BHAVAN, MAHAVIR NAGAR MARG, NEAR GOVT. HOSPITAL, SATANA ROAD, MALEGAON 423203 . / APPELLANT PAN: AAHPL2980R VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL I, NASHIK . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH KAMAT, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 30 .0 5 . 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 . 0 6 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT (A) - I , NASHIK , BOTH DATED 05.09.2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 8 - 0 9 AND 2009 - 10 AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . BOTH THE APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ON IDENTICAL ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 2 SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.1998/PUN/2014 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1998/PUN/2014 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) - I , NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.13,68,520/ - LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEALS) - I , NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT OBSERVATION OR BASIS THAT - A ) THE SEIZED MATERIAL ESTABLISHED UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF MARRIAGE OF APPELLAN T'S DAUGHTER MS. SHAISHAVI V. LODHA, WHEN NO ADDITION IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE OF MARRIAGE OF MS. SHAISHAVI V. LODHA NOR ANY INCOME IS OFFERED BY APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE MARRIAGE OF MS. SHAIS HAVI V. LODHA TOOK PLACE IN MARCH, 2003 AND NOT DURING THE YEAR UNDER REVIEW. B ) THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWED INFLATION OF EXPENDITURE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING BOILER WOOD AND CONTRACT LABOUR IN RESPECT OF GROUP BUSINESS CONCERNS WHEN ADDITION MADE ON SAI D ACCOUNT WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) AND THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED BY ITAT AND PARTICULARLY WHERE NO APPEAL IS FILED TO HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN, THE SAID ISSUES IS NOT RELATED TO APPELLANT. C ) THE APPELLANT 'S BROTHER MR. DINESHKUMAR B. LODHA HAS DECLARED RS. 1.47 CRORES AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF HIMSELF AND HIS BROTHER VIJAYKUMAR B. LODHA AND ANILKUMAR B. LODHA ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAGE NO.51 OF BUNDLE NO A - L AND FURTHER ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.04 CRORES WAS DECLARED IN THE NAME OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF LODHA FAMILY INCLUDING THE APPELLANT, WHEN THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.47 CRORES HAS NEVER BEEN DECLARED BY MR. DINESHKUMAR B. LODHA AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN FULL OR IN PART AND IN RESPECT OF THE O THER DEEMED INCOME OF RS. 1.04 CRORES THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OFFERED THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO OF THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT OUT OF SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1.04 CRORE IS DELETED BY CIT (A) AND THE SAID ORDER OF C IT (A) IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AGAINST WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED APPEAL TO HIGH COURT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXPLANATI ON 5A TO SECTION 271( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 3 4. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.13,68,520/ - U/S. 271( 1 )(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CO - RELATING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFER ED IN RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE SEIZED RECORD, WHICH THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271( 1 )( C) OF RS.13,68,520/ - LEVIED BY AO ON THE DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S. 139 AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153A ON THE ALLEGED BASIS THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE APPELLAN T IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/LOOSE PAPER FOUND/SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, WHEN THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY SUCH INCRIMINATING SEIZED RECORD. 6. ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER THE LAW, THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S. 271( 1 )(C) OF RS.13 , 68 , 520/ - , WHEN THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND FALSE OR UNSUBSTANTIATED BY THE AO. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SE ARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 21.05.2009. THE ASSESSEE WAS PART OF LODHA GROUP OF CASES AT MALEGAON. THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION. CER T AIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.07.2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,65,180/ - . IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 44,64,590/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,05,506/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 4 NOTED THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TAKEN UP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FOR PROPERTY GIVEN TO ONE RAMCHANDRA D. AHIRE IN CASH OF RS.3,13,900/ - . WHILE MAKING THE SAID ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS SEPARATELY INITIATED. SIMILARLY, ANOTHER ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 4 INCOME OF RS.52,753/ - . ANOTHER ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE RECE IVED AGAINST PROPERTY VIS - - VIS BUNGALOW CONSTRUCTION OF RS.28,84,010/ - AND ADVANCE PAID FOR PROPERTY AT RS.16 LAKHS IN BUNGALOW INVESTMENT, ETC. AND IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY WAY OF ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. AFTER COMPUTING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR VIOLATION ON FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS: - 1. FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT RS.3,13,900/ - FOR F ICTITIOUS & F AKE TRANSACTION DEBITED / CREDITED AS ADVANCES IN CASH FOR PROPERTY USING HIS UNACCOUNTED AND UNEXPLAINED MONIES. 2. FOR FURNISHING OF INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT RS. 28,84,010/ - FOR F ICTITIOUS & F AKE TRANSACTION DEBITED / CREDITED AS ADVANCES IN CASH FOR PROPERTY USING HIS UNACCOUNTED AND UNEXPLAINED MONIES. 3. FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT RS.16,00,000/ - FOR FI CTITIOUS & FAKE TRANSACTION DEBITED / CREDITED AS ADVANCES IN CASH FOR PROPERTY USING HIS UNACCOUNTED AND UNEXPLAINED MONIES. 4 . FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AT RS.95,31,628/ - ON ACCOUNT OF NOTING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 5. FOR CON CEALMENT OF INCOME AT RS.39,99,410/ - ON DIFFERENCE OF INCOME OF ORIGINAL RETURN AND RETURN U/S 153A OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE LEVYING PENALTY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.39,99,410/ - WHILE FILING THE R ETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER NOTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY CONCEALED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.39,99,410/ - , PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTES THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DELETED ALL OTHER ADDITIONS EXCEPT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN RETURN OF INCOME OF RS.39,99,410/ - . CONSEQUENTLY, ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 5 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE REST RICTED TO THE SAID CONCEALMENT OF RS. 39,99,410/ - AND PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE SATISFACTION OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.39,99,410/ - . HENCE, PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED AT RS.13,68,520/ - . 6. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY, IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 5 A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. THE FIRST CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THAT THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD REFLECT NO SATISFACTION HAVING BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY WAY OF RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT THERE IS D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, NO SATISFACTION IS RECORDED FOR INITIATING ANY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTION WAS FURTHER DRAWN TO VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND AT THE CONCLUSION OF WHICH, PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN INITIATED. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE CONCLUSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN HE ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR VI OLATION ON FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS I.E. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 6 OF ALL THE ADDITIONS AND IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE OF INCOME OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AT RS.39,99,410/ - , FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 9. THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON BOTH THE LIMBS I.E. FOR FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.39,99,410/ - WHICH IS INCORRECT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT A RE ATTRACTED , BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY WHICH IS MISSING AND THEREAFTER, HE HAS TO GIVE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE AND HENCE, THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BOTH BASELESS AND INVALID. 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND P ERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US, SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .4,65,180/ - ON 20.07.2004. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING RS.44,64,590/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,05,506/ - . THERE IS UPWARD ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 7 REVISION OF INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT I.E. AFTER THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. THE SAID DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4 ITSELF I.E. WHILE ACKNOWLEDGING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILS TO RECORD ANY SATISFACTION IN THIS REGARD THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THIS DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME, THE A SSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND IS THUS, LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ONLY IN THE FINAL CONCLUSION, IT DIRECTS THE ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN RESPECT OF SAID DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME BETWEEN ORIG INAL RETURN AND RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND WHILE MAKING EACH OF THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MAKING IT LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO RECORD SATISFAC TION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE IN INCOME FILED UNDER THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE INCOME OFFERED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE DIRECTION TO ISSUE SHOW CAUSE NO TICE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS WITHOUT ANY SATISFACTION BEING RECORDED AND HENCE, HAS NO MEANING. FURTHER, THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE IN INCOME OF RS.39,99,410/ - BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER WHILE LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 8 WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT O F RS.39,99,410/ - . 12. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT CAN BE LEVIED FOR THE SATISFACTION OF EITHER OF LIMBS I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS CASE, EVEN I F WE ACCEPT THE PLEA OF REVENUE THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY INITIATED, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE THAT THERE IS FAILURE TO RECORD SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER , H OWEVER, THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICE R SUFFERS FROM INFIRMITIES FOR HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 39,99,410/ - . WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD OF HAVING NOT COME TO A CONCLUSION AS TO WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HEREIN ITSELF THAT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADDITIONS FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDING S WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, NO PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON SUCH ADDITIONS. THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADDITIONS WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE IN INCOME BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE A CT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THUS, DIRECTED TO ITA NO S . 19 98 & 1999 /P U N/20 1 4 VIJAYKUMAR BHAGCHAND LODHA 9 DELETE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED. 13. THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.1999/PUN/2014 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.1998/PUN/2014 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NO. 1998/PUN/2014 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ITA NO.1999/PUN/2014 1 4 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF JUNE , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 16 TH JUNE , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I , NASHIK ; 4. / THE CIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE