Jamnalal Bajaj Foundation, New Delhi V. DCIT (E), New Delhi

ITA 2033/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7215 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AGAINST DATED PASSED
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Question of law; Wrong claim; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 14A; 80G; 12A; 250; 274; 73

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT M EMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUD ICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2033/DEL/2017 (A.Y 2009-10) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING) JAMNALAL BAJAJ FOUNDATION C/O. BAJAJ AUTO LTD. B/60-61, NARAINA INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE-II, NEW DELHI AAATJ0402B (APPELLANT) VS DCI T(E) CIRCLE-1(1), ROOM NO. 2418, 24 TH FLOOR, E-2, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAWAN, CIVIC CENTRE, J. L. NEHRU MARG, NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 01/02/2017 PASSED BY CIT(A)-40, NEW DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT RS. 5,39 ,56,443/-: 1.1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) [ CIT (A)] ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, IMPOSING/ LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS. 5,39,56,443/- ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD APPELLANT BY MS. VASANTI PATEL, ADV, SH. MAHENDER GOVIL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. MUNISH KUMAR, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 12.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.09.2021 2 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THER EBY CONCEALED INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED WRONG CLAIM OF DEEMED INCOME UND ER SECTION 11(3) OF THE ACT. 1.2 THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE LEGAL POSITION EMERGING FROM AND RULE OF LAW LA ID DOWN IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE/EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT ISSUED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER DOES NOT INDICATE THE SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY P,, MGS WERE INIT IATED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY U/SECTION 271(L)(C) IS V ITIATED AND MAY ACCORDINGLY BE QUASHED / STRUCK/ B / SET ASIDE AS BAD IN LAW AN D WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED/DEL ETED AS THE SAME IS UNWARRANTED, UNJUSTIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME WAS FI LED ON 30/09/2009 BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS REGISTERED U/S 12A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, VIDE ORDER DATED 22/5/1976 AND WAS ALSO ALLOWED THE BENE FIT OF 80G (5)(VI). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE PENDENCY OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RET URN ON 24/3/2011 AND INCOME OF RS. 18,87,107/- WAS DECLARED AND TAXES TH EREON WAS PAID. THE REASON FOR REVISING THE RETURN AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT OUT OF SURPLUS ACCUMULATED U/S 11(2), A SUM OF RS. 20 CROR ES WAS UTILIZED FOR GRANTING DONATIONS TO OTHER CHARITABLE TRUST OF THE INSTITUT IONS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 19/2/2011 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 19,02,18,230/-, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESS MENT ORDER, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED IN THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SHOW CAUSE U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH SE CTION 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 19/12/2011 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UP ON THE ASSESSEE FURTHER 3 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 NOTICED DATED 3/3/2014 WAS ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSE E VIDE LETTER DATED 12/3/2014 SUBMITTED THE REPLY THEREBY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT PVT . LTD. 322 ITR 158 (S.C) CONTENDING THEREIN THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NO T LEVIABLE AS IT HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY FACTS NOR IT HAS FURNISHED ANY INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE W RONG CLAIM IN RESPECT OF TAXABLE INCOME THEREBY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED ITS INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR NOR ANY LETTER OR ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF ALLEGED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE ATTRACTED IN TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SATISFACTION RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF FOR IMPOSING THE PENALTY ON A PARTICULAR LIMB AS HA S BEEN SET OUT IN THE RELEVANT SECTION OF THE ACT. THE REVISED RETURN WA S DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED AS THE ASSESSEE NOTICED THAT DURIN G THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH, 2009 A SUM OF RS. 20 CRORES HAS BEEN TRANSF ERRED FROM THE CREDIT BALANCE IN INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT TO THE TR UST FUND ACCOUNT. THE BALANCE IN TRUST FUND ACCOUNT ALONG WITH THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR GRA NT CORPUS DONATION TO THE OTHER CHARITABLE TRUSTS. DURING THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXERCISED THE OPTION FOR ACCUMULATION U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AN D THE SERVICE WAS ACCUMULATED FOR THE CHARITABLE OBJECTS OF THE TRUST AS UNDER:- 4 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 SR. NO . ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT 1 2006 - 07 4,66,00,000/ - 2 2007 - 08 10,50,00,000/ - 3 2008 - 09 10,00,00,000/ - TOTAL: 25,16,00,000/ - WHILE GRANTING THE DONATIONS TO OTHER CHARITABLE TR UST, THE SURPLUS ACCUMULATED U/S 11(2) OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE GOT UTILIZED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 20 CRORES, THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 1(3) (C)/11(3) (D) OF THE ACT GOT ATTRACTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE COMPU TED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER REVISED STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME FOR THE ABOVE YEAR AND HAS OFFERED TO TAX THE SAID DEEMED INCOME U/S 11(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO PAID THE TAX OF RS.7,75,69,270/- PAYABLE AS PER THE SAID REVISED STATEMENT OF COMPU TATION OF TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIELD THE RE VISED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ITS OWN ACCOUNT AND VOLUNTARILY BEING POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN ANY NOTICE IN THIS BEHALF. THUS, THE ASSESSEE TRUST HAS MADE BONAFIDE CLAIM AND ALL RELEVANT FACTS WERE FULLY DI SCLOSED. THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN C ASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 32 2 ITR 158 (SC) CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 250 (KARNATAKA)/(2015) 359 ITR 565. VENTURA TEXTILES LTD VS. CIT (2020) 426 ITR 478/117 TAXMANN.COM 182 PR. CIT VS. NEERAJ JINDAL (2017) 79 TAXMANN.COM 96 (DELHI)/393 ITR 1 PR. CIT VS. SAMTEL INDIA LTD. (2018) 168 DTR (DEL) 322 SHRI OMPRAKASH T. MEHTA VS. ITO 5 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 M/S. BALAJI TELEFILMS LTD. VS. DCIT DY CIT VS. M/S NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION LTD. ASSTT. CIT VS. ASHOK RAJ NATH (2012) 19 ITR (TRIB) 70 (DELHI) MRS. MANJEET KAUR SARAN VS. DCIT KAILASH CHANDER MALHOTRA HUF VS. ACIT PRAFULL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. DCIT 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE PENALTY ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRST OF ALL, IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 2 74 R.W.S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGES AS REL ATES TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. FROM THE NOTICE DATED 19/12/2011 PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SURE UNDER WHICH LIMB OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO DID NOT SPEC IFY THE CHARGE AS TO WHETHER THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271 (1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 274 WAS NOT AS PER THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS OF PEN ALTY ENVISAGED IN INCOME TAX ACT. THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DEC ISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF M/S SSA EMERALD MEADOW. THE EXTRA CT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN M/S SSA EMERALD ME ADOWS ARE AS UNDER WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT: '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT 'T HE ACT') TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE 6 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE ITA NO. 4913/DEL/2015 DECISION OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THI S COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -VS- MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565. 4. IN OUR VIEW, SINCE THE MATTER IS COVERED BY JUDG MENT OF THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIA L QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS APPEAL FOR DETERMINATION BY THIS COURT. THE AP PEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED.' THUS, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. (II) OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BE COME NULL AND VOID, THERE IS NO NEED TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF THE CASE. THE PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. 7.1. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE INAPPROPRIA TE WORDS IN THE PENALTY NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN STRUCK OFF AND THE NOTICE DOES NOT SPECIFY AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DELETED. ALTHOUGH THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT MERE NON-STRIKING OFF OF THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS WI LL NOT INVALIDATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE K ARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA) WHERE THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HNBLE APEX COURT IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE CONTESTED HEREIN BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WHEN THE NOTICE IS NOT MENTIONING THE CONCEALMENT OR THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE PRES ENT CASE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH W AS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSE RVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF 7 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 SECTION 271(1)(C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED UNDER I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIG H COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX V. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241(KAR) , THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA I N SLP NO. 11485 OF 2016 BY ORDER DATED 5 TH AUGUST, 2016. 22. ON THIS ISSUE AGAIN THIS COURT IS UNABLE TO FIN D ANY ERROR HAVING BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ITAT. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 7.2. ON MERIT, THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED THEREBY OBSE RVING THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE WRONG CLAIM IN RESPECT OF TAXABLE INCOME THERE BY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALED ITS INCOME WITH IN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HELD AS UN DER: 18. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RE TURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LA W, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOU NT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 19. IT WAS TRIED TO BE SUGGESTED THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE SHARES DID NOT FORM THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, REITERATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWING THAT THEY ARE 8 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 INCORRECT; IT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS TRIED TO BE ARGUED THAT THE FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF T HE TWO FORMS; (I) AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRESSED FRAUDULENTLY; (II) AN ITE M OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY (OR IN AN EXAGGERATED AMOUNT) CLAIMED, AND BOTH TYPES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, BOTH TYPE S AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONE'S INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 20. WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAI MED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVEN UE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. THUS, IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURN ISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE REVISED RETURN WAS FIL ED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE BEING POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) & 143(2). THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE STATU TORY DEDUCTIONS/EXEMPTIONS ONLY. THUS, THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION AND SECTION 271(1)(C) W ILL NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT R IGHT IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY AND THE CIT(A) ALSO IGNORED THE CRUCIAL FACTS OF TH E PRESENT CASE. HENCE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9 ITA NO. 2033/DEL/2017 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021. SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 03/09/2021 R. NAHEED * COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI