THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT.COOP MILK PRODUCER UNIO, HOSHIAPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMME TAX , HOSHIARPUR

ITA 207/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7756 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SACHIN MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Wrong claim
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B; 143(3); 14A; 205; 250; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 207/ASR/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., VPO:AJJOWAL, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR [PAN: AABFT 3731E] VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HOSHIARPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. SACHIN MALHOTRA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R .) DATE OF HEARING: 28.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.04.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, JALANDHAR, ('CIT(A)' FOR SHORT) DATED 27.03.2018, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) IN ITS CASE F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2014-15 VIDE ORDER DATED 22/5/2017. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, A COOPERATIVE-SOCIETY IN THE BUSINESS OF PROCESSING AND MARKETING OF MILK AND MI LK PRODUCTS UNDER THE BRAND NAME VERKA, FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR T HE RELEVANT YEAR ON 03.11.2014 AT A LOSS RS.469.69 LACS. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, IT ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 2 WAS FOUND TO HAVE CLAIMED PER ITS SAID RETURN GRAT UITY EXPENSES, ALREADY CLAIMED PER ITS RETURN FOR AY 2013-14. THE SAME (RS.47,29, 674) WERE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED VIDE ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 04.11.2016 (COPY ON RECORD). IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C), INITIATED FOR FURNISHIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE DOUBLE CLAIM OF GRATUITY EXPENDITURE (TO THAT EXTENT) WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A MI STAKE BY THE ACCOUNTANT, WHO HAD INSTEAD OF DEBITING THE PAYMENT (OF GRATUITY) T O THE PROVISION A/C IN BOOKS, DEBITED IT TO THE GRATUITY PAID A/C. A PROVISION OF RS.70 LACS WAS CREATED IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR F.Y. 2012-13, THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVA NT TO AY 2013-14, IN RESPECT OF SEVEN EMPLOYEES WHO HAD RETIRED DURING THAT YEAR (A T THE RATE OF RS.10 LACS EACH), MADE IN VIEW OF THE EXACT QUANTUM OF LIABILITY BEIN G YET TO BE DETERMINED. PAYMENT THERETO WAS MADE DURING THE CURRENT YEAR AT RS.47,2 9,674, AT WHICH SUM, THEREFORE, IT WAS ALLOWED FOR THAT YEAR (AY 2013-14); THE BALA NCE (RS.22.70 LACS) BEING AN EXCESS PROVISION, NOT REPRESENTING ANY LIABILITY. I T IS THIS PAYMENT THAT STANDS, INSTEAD OF BEING ADJUSTED AGAINST THE SAID PROVISIO N CLAIMED AGAIN THROUGH DEBIT TO THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE CURRENT YEAR (UNDER THE ACC OUNT HEAD GRATUITY PAID). IN OTHER WORDS, THE IMPUGNED CLAIM WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE MISTAKENLY, ON ACCOUNT OF A CLERICAL ERROR BY THE ACCOUNTANT WHO DID NOT HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF ACCOUNTANCY OR OF THE LEGAL PROVISIONS, WHICH REMAI NED UNCHECKED BY THE AUDITORS. A MERE WRONG CLAIM WOULD NOT THOUGH ATTRACT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), AS EXPLAINED IN, AMONG OTHERS, CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) (RPPL), ALSO FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT, AS IN CIT V. SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES [2010] 322 ITR 80 (P&H) AND CIT V. RUBBER UDYOG VIKAS PVT. LTD. [2011] 335 ITR 558 (P&H). THE SAME DID NOT FIND FA VOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) AS THE BLAME FOR WRONG CLAIM COULD NOT BE PASSED OFF AS A CLERICAL MISTAKE WITHOUT ANY RESPONSIBILITY BEING T AKEN BY THE ASSESSEE (OR ITS MANAGEMENT). THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE DURING THE C URRENT YEAR, WITHIN A GAP ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 3 OF A FEW MONTHS OF MAKING THE CLAIM FOR THE IMMEDIA TELY PRECEDING YEAR. PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED BY HIM AT THE MINIMUM RATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT, I.E., AT 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, AT RS .14.61 LACS. THE SAME STOOD CONFIRMED IN APPEAL AS THERE WAS NO BONA FIDE REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CLAIMED AN EXPENSE, ALREADY CLAIMED, AGAIN, RELYING ON THE DECISION IN CIT V. ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD . [2010] 327 ITR 510 (DEL), ALSO REPRODUCING THEREF ROM. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES, AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 3.1 EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES FOR PENALTY WHERE IN RESPECT OF FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME, AN Y PERSON FAILS TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION OR OFFERS ONE WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALS E, OR ONE WHICH HE IS OTHERWISE UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND PROVE THE BONA FIDES OF SUCH EXPLANATION AS WELL AS THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS, BY DEEMING HI M TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN TH E COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME. THE BURDEN, THUS, IS STRICTLY ON THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN HIS RETURN, WHICH BEARS HIS VERIFICATION AS TO THE TRUTH AND THE CORR ECTNESS OF THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED THEREIN, AS WELL AS HIS CONDUCT. THIS, IN FACT, REP RESENTS TRITE LAW, CLARIFIED BY THE APEX COURT PER A SERIES OF DECISIONS, VIZ. MAK DATA (P.) LTD. VS. CIT [2013] 358 ITR 593 (SC); UNION OF INDIA V. DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS [2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC); K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN VS. CIT [2001] 251 ITR 99 (SC); B.A. BALASUBRAMANIAM AND BROS V. CIT [1999] 236 ITR 977 (SC); ADDL. CIT VS. JEEVAN LAL SHAH [1994] 205 ITR 244 (SC); CIT VS. K. R. SADAYAPPAN [1990] 185 ITR 49 (SC)), TO CITE SOME, FOLLOWED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT S THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, AS IN CIT V. LALCHAND TIRATH RAM [1997] 225 ITR 675 (P&H); PREM PAL GANDHI V. CIT (IN ITA NO. 353 OF 2009, DATED 22/7/2009), TO NOTE TWO. THIS IS ALSO THE BASIS AND THE PURPORT OF THE DECISION IN ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 4 ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS PVT. LTD . (SC), RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE. THE REASON IS SIMPLE. IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSEE WHO FURNISHES HIS R ETURN OF INCOME AND, BESIDES, IS IN THE KNOW OF HIS AFFAIRS, SO THAT THE ELEMENT OF DEL IBERATENESS IS IMPLICIT IN THE INCOME AS DISCLOSED, INCLUDING THE DEDUCTION/S CLAI MED. AS SUCH, WHERE THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BEAR A WRONG CLAIM, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXHIBIT HIS BONA FIDES IN PREFERRING THAT CLAIM, OR ELSE HE IS DEEMED BY L AW TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, ATTRACTING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), WHICH IS PEGGED WITH REFERENCE TO THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, RANGING F ROM A MINIMUM OF 100% TO A MAXIMUM OF 300% THEREOF. WHEN, THEREFORE, THE APEX COURT IN RPPL (SUPRA) STATES THAT A MERE WRONG CLAIM SHALL NOT INVITE PEN ALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), ALL THAT IS MEANT IS THAT PENALTY IS NEITHER ABSOLUTE NOR AUTOM ATIC. EXPLANATION 1 ITSELF PROVIDES THE GATEWAY; BY OFFERING AN EXPLANATION TH AT HE CAN SUBSTANTIATE, SHOWING HIS BONA FIDES , WITH THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME THE SAME BEING ITSELF AN ACT TOWARD ESTABL ISHING HIS BONA FIDES , AN ASSESSEE CAN ESCAPE PENALTY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THAT IT IS OFT SAID THAT A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION SAVES PENALTY. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CAS E, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED INTEREST ON BORROWING/S APPLIED IN SHARES ON WHICH NO DIVIDEND INCOME HAD BEEN RECEIVED. THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED U/S. 36(1)(III) A ND, IN ANY CASE, U/S. 14A IN-AS- MUCH AS DIVIDEND INCOME IS TAX-EXEMPT, I.E., IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SHAR ES WAS A PART OF ITS BUSINESS, WITH ITS CLAIM FOR INTEREST HAVING BEEN IN FACT AC CEPTED IN THE PAST BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE, THE APEX COURT OPINED, C AN AT BEST BE SAID TO HAVE MADE A CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IMPLIEDLY , THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW, EVEN IF THE SAME DID NOT STAND OR MA Y NOT HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF JUDICIAL SCRUTINY. THIS PROPOSITION GETS CAPTURED I N THE DICTUM THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED WHERE THE MATTER IS DEBATABLE. THE APEX C OURT IN RPPL (SUPRA) DOES NOT CONTRADICT THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT PER A HOST OF DECISIONS, SOME OF ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 5 WHICH STAND CITED SUPRA. IT COULD IN LAW EVEN OTHER WISE NOT AS, WHERE NOT IN AGREEMENT, WOULD HAVE TO REFER THE MATTER TO A LARG ER BENCH, WITH IN FACT SOME DECISIONS AFORE-REFERRED BEING BY ITS LARGER BENCH ES. 3.2 CONTINUING FURTHER, ADMISSION OF A MISTAKE ITSE LF IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION, SO THAT EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD, FOR SURE, GET ATTRACTED. A MISTAKE, HOWEVER, MAY BE WITHOUT ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO EVADE TAX, A NOTION IMPLICIT IN EXPLANATION 1 , BESIDES BEING INTEGRAL TO THE CONCEPT OF LEVY OF PENALTY. A BONA FIDE MISTAKE ELIMINATES OR REMOVES THE ELEMENT OF DELIBERATENESS ON WHICH PENALTY IS PREMISED OR ITS EDIFICE RESTS. THE LIMITS TO THE CONCEPT OF A MISTAKE ARE, HOWEVER, IMPLICIT THERE IN, FOR OTHERWISE ANY WRONG CLAIM PER ITS RETURN, WHICH HE IS IN LAW OBLIGED TO PROVE, INCLUDING THE CLAIMS PREFERRED THEREBY, CAN BE PASSED OFF BY AN ASSESSEE AS A MISTAKE, BY-PASSING EXPLANATION 1 , WHICH IS THE ACID TEST LAID DOWN BY LAW FOR A PER SON TO ESCHEW PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). SECTION 273B PROVIDES BOTH, THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK AS WELL AS THE LIMITS AFORE-REFERRED. IT, SO TO SPEAK, EXTENDS THE SCOPE OF THE EXCLUSION PER EXPLANATION 1 (TO SECTION 271(1)(C)) TO FURTHER EXCLUDE CASES OF REASONABLE CAUSE, PROVING WHICH SAVES PENALTY UNDER SEVERAL PROVISION S OF CHAPTER XXI U/S. 273B. THE CONCEPT IS WELL ACCEPTED, AND FOR WHICH WE MAY REFER TO THE DECISION IN PRICEWATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. V. CIT [2012] 348 ITR 306 (SC) WHEREIN, INCIDENTALLY, THE PATENTLY WRONG CLAIM, ON WHICH PE NALTY WAS EXCUSED ON BEING FOUND TO BE ON ACCOUNT OF A BONA FIDE MISTAKE, WAS AGAIN OF GRATUITY EXPENSE. THE DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, CITED SUPRA, ARE TO THE SAME EFFECT. IT IS UNDER THIS LEGAL FRAMEWORK, THEN, TH AT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF IT BEING A MISTAKE, COMMITTED BONA FIDE , IS TO BE THUS EXAMINED. 3.3 REASONABLE CAUSE, AS WELL AS PROVING IT, ARE MATTERS OF FACT, TO BE DETERMINED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 6 INCLUDING CONDUCT. WE MAY ACCORDINGLY, NEXT, EXAMIN E THE SURROUNDINGS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHICH WE OBSERVE AS FOLLOWS: (A) THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT BODY, I.E., ITS C HARACTER IS OF A PUBLIC INSTITUTION; (B) IT IS MANDATED TO WORK ON A NO PROFIT NO LOSS BASIS, EVEN AS SOME PROFIT OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, LOSS MAY ARISE OUT OF ITS OPERATIO NS; (C) IT HAS INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.392.44 LACS DURING THE CURRENT YEAR, I.E., EXCLUSIVE OF THE EXCESS CLAIM OF GRATUITY; (D) ITS LOSS FOR THE NEXT YEAR, I.E., AY 2015-16, AS INFORMED BY THE LD. COUNSEL, SH. MALHOTRA DURING HEARING, IS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 250 LACS ; (E) IT IS OPERATING IN A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT, S O THAT THE RECOUPMENT OF LOSS/ES, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT IT IS A GOVERNMENT IN STITUTION, IS ITSELF A CHALLENGE IN- AS-MUCH AS IT WOULD FIRST BE REQUIRED TO BREAK EVEN ; (F) THE ASSESSEE IS WELL SERVED BY STATUTORY AND TA X AUDITORS AS WELL AS LEGAL PROFESSIONALS; (G) THE CLAIM OF GRATUITY IS NOT A REGULAR CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE BUT SUBJECT TO SECTION 40A(7), BEING, RATHER, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REPORT ING IN FORM 3CD BY THE AUDITORS. THERE IS, CLEARLY, NO IMMEDIATE AND, AS IT APPEARS, EVEN PROBABLE TAX IMPACT. THE LOSSES OF SUCH INSTITUTIONS ARE USUALLY MET BY GOVE RNMENT THROUGH BUDGETARY SUPPORT. FURTHER, IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE F ILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND MATTERS CONNECTED THEREWITH; INCLUDING ITS FINALIZA TION, CAN REASONABLY BE EXPECTED BY THE MANAGEMENT WHICH HAS NO STAKE IN TAX AVOID ANCE, TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY THE PROFESSIONALS. AS IT APPEARS TO US, THE PROVISI ON FOR GRATUITY WAS MADE, AS IS USUALLY THE CASE FOR YEAR-END PROVISIONS, AT THE TI ME OF FINALIZING THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, I.E., AY 2013-14, A T THE INSTANCE OF THE AUDITOR AND/OR THE TAX PROFESSIONALS. ITS ACCOUNTANT HAD B Y THEN ALREADY DEBITED THE GRATUITY PAID (ON THE PAYMENT OF THE GRATUITY DURIN G THE CURRENT YEAR) TO THE SINCE RETIRED EMPLOYEES IN THE ACCOUNTS FOR THE CURRENT Y EAR. HE WAS, AS IT APPEARS, OBLIVIOUS OF A PROVISION HAVING BEEN ALREADY MADE/P ROPOSED IN ACCOUNTS, SO THAT ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 7 THE SAID PAYMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEBITED (OR TRA NSFERRED) TO THE SAID PROVISION ACCOUNT. IT IS THE AUDITORS WHO HAVE FAILED TO EXE RCISE PROPER PROFESSIONAL CARE IN DETECTING THE IRREGULARITY WHILE FINALIZING THE ACC OUNTS AND THEIR REPORT THEREON, INCLUDING THAT UNDER THE ACT, FOR THE CURRENT YEAR; THE CLAIM FOR GRATUITY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR BEING AT AN AMOUNT PERCEPTIBLY HIGHER THAN THAT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, SO THAT IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INQUI RED INTO. FURTHER, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, INASMUCH AS IT ALSO ESTABLISHES THE BONA FIDES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PROVISION (FOR GRATUITY) CONTINUES TO BE UNADJUSTED , I.E., OUTSTANDS IN ACCOUNTS AT THE SAME AMOUNT AT WHICH IT OUTSTOOD AS AT 31/3/2013, I .E., THE END OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, SO THAT EVEN THE AMOUNT DISALLOWED (FOR THAT YEAR) OR PROVIDED FOR IN EXCESS BEING NOT ASCERTAINED AT THE RELEVANT T IME, HAD NOT BEEN REVERSED EVEN AS THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE AT A LESSER AMOUNT DUR ING THE CURRENT YEAR. THERE IS, THUS, CLEARLY A DERELICTION OF DUTY ON THE PART OF THE AUDITORS WHO HAD APPARENTLY ALSO NOT REPORTED CORRECTLY U/S. 44AB. EQUALLY, THE TAX PROFESSIONAL/S PREPARING THE RETURN FAILED TO DETECT THE ANOMALY WHICH IS PATENT INASMUCH AS THERE IS NO FRESH PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WHILE THE BROUGHT FORWARD PR OVISION CONTINUES TO OUTSTAND IN ACCOUNTS DESPITE PAYMENT OF GRATUITY, AND EVEN AS T HE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM FOR GRATUITY FOR THE YEAR IN A HIGHER THAN NORMAL SUM O F RS. 214.91 LACS. 4 IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, WE HAVE NO DOUBT THAT T HE EXCESS CLAIM OF GRATUITY EXPENSE (RS. 47.30 LACS) WAS A RESULT OF A BONA FIDE MISTAKE BY THE ASSESSEE, SAVING PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED A GROUND QUA THE INVALIDITY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE NOTICE U/S. 27 4, SHOW CAUSING THE ASSESSEE THEREFOR, THE SPECIFIC LIMB OF S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT STRUCK OFF, EVEN AS, ADMITTEDLY, THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER IS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE SAME WAS, IN VIEW OF OUR ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE, NOT PRESSED NOR, CON SEQUENTLY, RESPONDED TO BY THE ITA NO. 207/ASR/2018 (AY 2014-15) THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. M. P .U. LTD. V. DY. CIT 8 REVENUE. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON APRIL 24, 201 9 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 24.04.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: THE HOSHIARPUR DISTT. COOP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD., VPO: AJJOWAL, DISTT. HOSHIARPUR (2) THE RESPONDENT: DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX, HOSHIARPUR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER