Sh. Surya Pratap Singh, Farrukhabad V. I.T.O., Ward-2, Farrukhabad

ITA 205/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0384 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1994-1995
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: J L VERMA; ANIL VERMA S
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 147; 69; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, SMC, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 TO 1996-97 SHRI SURYA PRATAP SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 1/89-A, CIVIL LINES, WARD-2, FARRUKHABAD. FATEHGARH, FARRUKHABAD. (PAN: ADMPS 3786 J). ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.L. VERMA & SHRI ANIL VERMA, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.12.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE SEVEN APPEALS AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 30.03.2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 TO 1996-97 RESPECTIVELY. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL, EXCEPT FOR AMOUNTS I N DISPUTE, THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 2 THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.201/AGR/2011 FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1990-91 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY OF ` 95,000/- ERRONEOUSLY AND UNLAWFULLY INFLICTED BY TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. 2. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT CIT(A)S APPEAL ORDER FOR A.Y . 1997-98 GIVING RISE TO THE REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE AND RES TORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ASSESSMENT, THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DROPPED OR KEPT IN ABEYANCE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. 3. THAT THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEI THER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR HAS FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFAULT OR CHARGE LEADING TO PENALTY EXCEPT MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF GENERAL NATURE WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY EVIDENCE WHIC H LED TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 5. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE CASE THE PENALTY IMPOSED AND CONSEQUENTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS HIGHLY UNJ UST, IMPROPER, ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, AMEND ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICING ADVOCATE AT FATEGARH, DISTRICT FARRUKHABAD. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR 1997-98 BY ADDING A SUM OF ` 8,72,355/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 3 ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITION IN THE CONSTRUCT ION OF HOUSE PROPERTY AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO TAKE PROPORTIONATE SUM AS UNEXPLAINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN DIFFERENT YEARS I.E. 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1991-92 AND ALSO TO SPREAD OVER THE UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT IN THE YEARS OF INVESTMENT MADE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ADJUDICATED OTHER GROUND S WHICH ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 ON THE AFORESAID FINDING, FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE I.T .A.T., AGRA BENCH I.E. ITA NOS.279, 280 & 281/AGR/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1997-98, 1998-99 & 2000-01 TITLED AS SARDAR SURYA PRATAP SINGH , FATEH GARH VS. I.T.O., WARD-2, FARRUKHABAD. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL I.E . ITA NO.282/AGR/2004 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TITLED AS I.T.O., WARD-2 FA RRUKHABAD VS. SADAR SURYA PRATAP SINGH, FATEHGARH. BOTH THE APPEALS FINALLY CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH ON 30.04.2007 AND THE BENCH RE STORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AFRESH. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 4 PURPOSES AND THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS ALSO ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) (SUPRA) AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY LEVIED THE PENALTY IN DIS PUTE. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. FI RST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DISMISSED THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A SMALL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE NOS.1 TO 2 6 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED WRITTEN SUBMISSION, COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 01.04.2004, COPY OF ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 PASSED BY I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH, SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND COPY OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.03.2011 DELETING THE PENALTY FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997- 98, 1998-99 & 2000-01. 6. IN ADDITION TO THE SAID SUBMISSION, THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 8,72,355/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 5 1997-98 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON CONSTRUCTION O F HOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE YEARS 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1991-92 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE SUMS AS UNEXP LAINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN DIFFERENT YEARS. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004, THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) AND CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEARS 1990- 91 TO 2000-01. BUT AGGRIEVED BY THE DIRECTION GIVE N BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 FOR SPREAD OVER AND ADDITION OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., AGR A BENCH WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE AND DECIDE THE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFRESH. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE PENALTY O RDERS IN DISPUTE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.04.2007 HAS SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED AS A RESU LT OF APPEAL ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 6 DATED 01.04.2004 IS NOT ENFORCEABLE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.04.2007. THEREFORE, THE PENALTIES IN DISPUTE DESERVE TO BE QUASHED. 7. HE FURTHER SATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGH T NOT TO HAVE IMPOSED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) UNTIL THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 GIVING RISE TO REASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990-91 TO 1996-97 WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THUS, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FROM THIS POINT OF VIEW IS NO T LAWFUL. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1990-91 TO 2000-01 (EXCEPT 1999-2000) ARE IN SAME W ORDS, SAME ALLEGATIONS AND CITING ASSESSEES SAME SUBMISSIONS TO NOTICES IN TH E SAME WORDS, YET THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2011 HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO DELETE THE PENALTY FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 1997-98, 1998-99 & 2000-01. IN REST OF THE YEARS PENALTY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING TH AT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF EITHER ALLEGATION, NATURE OF ADDITION OR ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS OR POSITION OF LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE PENALTY COULD BE DROPPED F OR THREE YEARS, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DEMAND THAT PENALTY FOR REST OF THE YEARS SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN DELETED AS THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WERE SIMILAR F OR ALL THE TEN YEARS. FINALLY, HE REQUESTED THAT THE PENALTY ORDERS IN DISPUTE WHICH HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE DELETED BY ACCEPTING THE A PPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 7 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE STATED THAT THE PENALTIES IN DISPUTE HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON T HE BASIS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILES. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E MAY BE DISMISSED. 9. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 AND 30.03.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 PASSED BY THIS B ENCH IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS A PRACTICING ADVOCATE IN THE CIVIL COURT, FATEHGARH, DISTRICT FARRUKHABAD AND FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN THE STATUS OF INDIVIDUAL ON 29.10.1997 DISCLOSING INCOM E OF ` 66,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INI TIATED THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.09.1999. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE SMT. MANJEET KAUR STATED T HAT SHE HAD INVESTED MONEY IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH HER HUSB AND SHRI SURYA PRATAP SINGH (ASSESSEE), THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED HER ASS ESSMENT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND HELD THAT SUBSTANTIVE INCOME FROM TUITION WILL BE A SSESSED IN THE HANDS OF HER ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 8 HUSBAND (ASSESSEE) AS SHE FAILED TO PROVE HER INCOM E FROM TUITION. AFTER HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS GOING T HROUGH THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED ` 8,72,355/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1997-98. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD BY RAISING VARIOUS ISSUES INCLUDING THE ADDITION OF ` 8,72,355/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN GROUND NO.5. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN HIS ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 V IDE PARAGRAPH NO.6 AT PAGE NO.4 HAS DEALT THE ADDITION OF ` 8,72,355/- AND HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS CONSTRUCT ED IN THE YEARS 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91 & 1991-92. CON SIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE PROPORTI ONATE SUM AS UNEXPLAINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND ALSO TO SPRE AD OVER THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE YEARS OF INVESTMENT MADE. THE AS SESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A), GHAZIABAD IN APPEAL BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1998-9 9 & 2000-01 VIDE ITA NOS.279, 280 & 281/AGR/2004 TITLES AS SARDAR SURYA PRATAP SINGH VS. I.T.O., WARD-2, FARRUKHABAD. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED AP PEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A) VIDE ITA NO.282/ AGR/2004 FOR THE ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 9 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 TITLED AS I.T.O., WARD-2, FARRUAKHABAD VS. SARDAR SURYA PRATAP SINGH. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30.04. 2007 RESTORED THE MATER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, AND THEREAFTER P ASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFRESH. THE ASSESSEE PLEADED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SUPPLIED THE REASONS RECORDED TILL DATE INS PITE OF REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE I.T.O. FOR SUPPLYING THE SAME TO TH E ASSESSEE SO THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE HIS OBJECTIONS THERETO. THE TRIBUNAL CONS IDERED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 147 HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF MITHLESH KUMAR TRIPATHI VS. CIT & OTHERS REPORTED IN 199 CTR 511 (ALLD.), I T IS INCUMBENT UPON THE DEPARTMENT TO GIVE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTO ALONGWITH THE NOTICE AND IN ABSENCE OF THE REASONS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROV ISIONS OF LAW HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO HELD THAT NON -SUPPLY OF REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE IS A DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND AND A NSWER THE NOTICE AND LASTLY THIS BENCH HAS RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO SUPPLY THE REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE TH E OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, AND THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFR ESH BY ALLOWING THE APPEALS OF ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 10 THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.04.2007. 10. I HAVE THOROUGHLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 PASSED BY THIS BENCH AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A ) DATED 01.04.2004 AND THE PENALTY ORDERS UNDER DISPUTE. I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTIES IN DISPUTE UNDER S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE P ROPORTIONATE SUM AS UNEXPLAINED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN DIFFERENT YEARS AND ALSO TO SPREAD OVER THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT I.E. ` 8,72,355/- IN THE YEARS OF INVESTMENT MADE. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE THE BASIS FOR REASSESSMEN T FOR ALL THE YEARS IN DISPUTE HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS PER PARAGRAPH NO.6 AT PAGE NO.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 01.04.2004 WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE I. T.A.T., AGRA BENCH VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 AND THE SUBSEQUENT IMPOSING OF PENALTY IN DISPUTE ON 23.03.2007 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SAME ORDER, IN MY VIEW IS NOT AS PER LAW AND PERMISSIBLE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PAS SED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 30.03.2011 AND WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDERS IN DISPUTE INSPITE OF HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 PASSED BY T HIS BENCH, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 OF LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED TO THE LD CIT(A), ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 11 GHAZIABAD ON 24.03.2011 ABOUT THE ORDER DATED 30.04 .2007 PASSED BY I.T.A.T., AGRA BENCH BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION. INSPITE O F THE SAME, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE PENALTIES IN DIS PUTE BY DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT APPRECIATED. WH EN THE BASIS OF ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THIS BENCH, THEN T HE QUESTION OF SUBSEQUENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT ARISE. THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 30.04.2007 PASSED BY THIS BENCH BY MAKI NG SIMILAR ADDITIONS AND PASSING ALMOST SAME ORDERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE SAME ARE PENDING ADJUDICATION. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRE CIATED THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE LATEST POSITION OF THE CASES ON HAND AND PASSED THE PENALTY ORDERS WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE OUTCOME OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO PASSED T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN HURRY MANNER INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES APPE ALS AGAINST THE BASIC ORDER DATED 01.04.2004 IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FINAL LY DECIDED ON 30.04.2007. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE PENALTIES VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2011 IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE FOR 3 YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98, 1998-99 & 2000-01 UNDER S IMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR REST OF THE YEARS PENALTY HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT PROPERLY ITA NOS.201 TO 207/AGR/2011 A.YS. 1990-91 TO 1996-97 12 APPRECIATING THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE OF EITHER ALLEGATION, NATURE OF ADDITIONS OR ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS OR POSITION OF LAW. 11. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY HAS WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ORDERS FOR THE YEARS IN DISPUTE INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE BASIC ORDER FOR REASSESSMENT FOR ALL THESE YEARS I.E. ORDER DATED 0 1.04.2004 OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.04.2007. IN M Y VIEW, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS DESERVE TO BE CANCELLED AND I CANCEL THE SAME BY AL LOWING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.12.2011) SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 29 TH DECEMBER, 2011 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CO NCERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY