Mandip Finserve Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-4(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2078/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9108 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOVIND SINGHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G S PATEL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 142(1); 139(5); 143(1); 143(2); 139(1); 139

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'SMC' (BEFORE SHRI P K BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2078/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MANDIP FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] PAN NO.: AAACM 7999 K ITA NO.2077/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MAULI FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] PAN NO.: AAACM 7998 J 2 ITA NO.2079/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) MANAN FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(4), AHMEDABAD [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] PAN NO.: AAACM 8000 F APPELLANT BY :- SHRI G S PATEL, CA RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL, SR. DR O R D E R THESE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS O F THE CIT(A) ALL DATED 31/03/2009 BY WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.34,946/- IN THE CASE OF MANDIP FINSERVE PVT. LTD., RS.16,350/- IN THE CASE OF MAULI FINSERVE PVT. LTD. AND RS.17,660/- IN THE CASE OF MANAN FINSERVE PVT. LTD. , LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [ THE ACT FOR SHORT] FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2 SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS ARE BEI NG DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. S INCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE ARE CO NSIDERING THE 3 FACTS IN THE CASE OF MANDIP FINSERVE PVT. LTD. [ITA NO.2078/AHD/2009] FOR DISPOSAL OF THESE APPEALS. 3 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF MANDI P FINSERVE PVT. LTD. [ITA NO.2078/AHD/2009] ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND IT FILED ITS ORIGI NAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD ON 05-12-2006 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,49,820/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U /S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 07-12-2007 AND THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 02-09-2007. SUBSEQUE NTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN ON 12-12-2007 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,53,643/- WITHDRAWING CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND TREATED THE REVISED RETURN FILED, AS INVALID AND DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AMOUNTING TO RS.1,03,823/-. THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEPR ECIATION ON THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON REN T ON WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 24 ALSO. THE AO LEVIED TH E PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HOLDING THAT THE REV ISED RETURN WHEREIN THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION WAS WITHDRAWN WA S FILED AFTER DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF MANAN F INSERVE PVT. LTD. AN ASSOCIATE GROUP CONCERN WITH COMMON DIRECTO R, FOR AY 2005-06 WAS FINALIZED ON 24-08-2007 AND SIMILAR CLA IM FOR DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED T HAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF SUCH POSITION ON 24-08-20 07 YET CHOSE TO FILE REVISED RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION ON 12-12- 2007. WHEN THE MATTER WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS UNDER: 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER U/S, 143 (3) DATED 28/02/2008 TREATING THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY YOUR APPELLANT AS A BELATED RETURN OF INCOME, ALTHOUGH THE REVISED RE TURN HAD BEEN FILED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME. FURTHER, THERE IS NO DIF FERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME TO JUSTIFY THE IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF LT. ACT, 1961. (RELIANCE IS PLACED O N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF INCOME T AX OFFICER V/S. FASHIONWAYS AS REPORTED IN (2002) 77 TTJ (ASR) 59). A COPY OF THE HEAD NOTES OF THE JUDGMENT IS ALSO ENCLOSED. (5) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE PENALTY OR DER U/S. 271(1)(C) DATED 25/08/2008 ON THE GROUND THAT, YOUR APPELLANT HAD DELIBERATELY CONCEALED INCOME/FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY YOUR A PPELLANT HAS ALSO BEEN IGNORED IN THE PENALTY ORDER. (RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF I NCOME TAX OFFICER V/S. SADHU SINGH & SONS AS REPORTED IN (200 0) 67 TTJ (ASR) 630). A COPY OF THE HEAD NOTES OF THE JUDGMENT IS A LSO ENCLOSED. (6) YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER STATES THAT, ACCORDING T O PROVISION OF SECTION 143 (2), THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL MAKE A SSESSMENT ON THE RETURN FILED U/S. 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 8/0 2/2008 AND PENALTY ORDER DATED 2 5/0 8/2008 HAVE NOT APPRECIAT ED THE CORRECT LEGAL POSITION BY IGNORING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME F ILED U/S. 139 (5) OF I. T. ACT, 1961. (7) YOUR APPELLANT RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THAT, THE D ISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMENT O F INCOME BY YOUR APPELLANT. (RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF KIKANI GORDHANDAS & CO. VIS CIT AS REPORTED IN (1993) 200 ITR 678.. (8) YOUR APPELLANT FURTHER RELIES UPON FOLLOWING DE CISIONS: (I) NARANBHAI VIRABHAI & CO. V/S. CIT AS REPORTED I N (1993) 203 ITR 1017 (GUJARAT) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT ST ATED THAT PENALTY 5 WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED WHERE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION IS DISALLOWED AND RETURN SHOWED ALL RELEVANT ACCOUNTS OF THE TRANSACT IONS (II) NATIONAL TEXTILES V/S. CIT AS REPORTED IN (200 1) 249 ITR 125 (GUJARAT) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT STATED THAT ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY IMP OSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271 (1) (C). IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENAL TY THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO REASONABLE CON CLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT DOES REPRESENT ASSESSEES INCOME AND THE CIR CUMSTANCES MUST SHOW THAT THERE WAS CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR ACT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT A C ONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT ASSESSED WAS IN FACT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. (III) CIT V/S. AJAIB SINGH & CO. AS REPORTED IN (20 02) 253 ITR 630 (P&H) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARIYANA D ELETED THE PENALTY U/S, 271 (1) (C) THAT DISALLOWANCES OF AN E XPENSES PER SE CANNOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INCORRE CT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR CONCEALED HIS INCOME. CONCEALMENT HAS TO BE PROVED AS A CONSCIOUS ACT FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ESTA BLISHED ON RECORD. (IV) CIT V/S. K.R. CHINNI KRISHNA CHETTY AS REPORTE D IN (2000) 246 ITR 121 (MADRAS) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS D ELETED THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) STATING THAT THERE IS NO EVI DENCE TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE COST OF CON STRUCTION. WITHOUT A FINDING OF CONCEALMENT THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF IMPOSING ANY PENALTY. ADDITION TO INCOME NOT SUFFICIENT FOR RECO RDING A FINDING OF CONCEALMENT. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY HOLDING TH AT THE AO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THE ASSESSEE GUILTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N TIME AND 6 VOLUNTARILY BEFORE DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCO ME BY THE AO. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN U /S 139(1) WAS FILED ON 05-12-2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,49,820 /- AND HAD CLAIMED THE DEPRECIATION BONAFIDELY AS PER ADVICE O F THE ASSESSEES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HOWEVER, AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE ORDER DATED 24-08-2007 FOR AY 2005-06 IN ONE OF THE GROUP CASES, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION, THE ASS ESSEE REALIZED THE MISTAKE OF LAW AND REVISED THE RETURN AND WITHD REW THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER THE ADVICE OF THEIR CHARTERE D ACCOUNTANT. THUS THE REVISED RETURN FILED U/S 139(5) ON 12-12-2 007 SHOWING INCOME OF RS.3,53,653/- WAS VALID IN LAW. THE LEARN ED AR ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AS WELL AS THAT OF TH E CIT(A) AND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FI LED AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2). THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE NOT FILED THE REVISED RETURN IF THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS NOT ISSU ED. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO DEF RAUD THE REVENUE. 5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ALONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH VA RIOUS CASE LAWS AS CITED BEFORE US. SECTION 271(1)(C) READS AS UNDER: 271.(1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONE R (APPEALS) [OR THE COMMISSIONER] IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON - 7 (A) .. (B) .. (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, OR (D) .. HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, - 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 OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMM ISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND [FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANAT ION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION 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 PURP OSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB-SECTION BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RE SPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) THE PENA LTY UNDER THIS SECTION IS LEVIABLE IF THE AO IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF AN Y PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS O F HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BOTH ARE DIFFERENT. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT RELATING T O THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME STATES THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALL OWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE T HE INCOME IN RESPECT OF 8 WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. THIS DEEMING PROVISION FOR CONCEALMENT IS NOT ABSOLUTE ONE. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES THAT AN AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF A PERSO N FALLING UNDER CLAUSE (A) OR (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 271(1)(C), BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAD BEEN CONCEALED. EXPLANATION 1 REFERS TO TWO SITUATIONS I N WHICH PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT CREATED BY EXPLANATION 1 IS AVAILABLE. THE FIRST SITUATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME, FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE. THE SECOND SITUATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME, OFFERS AN EXPLANAT ION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND ALSO FAILS TO PROVE THAT S UCH EXPLANATION WAS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPUTA TION OF TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. THE PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE UN DER EXPLANATION 1 CANNOT BE DRAWN UNLESS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FAL LS UNDER EITHER OF THE CLAUSES, VIZ., CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B). THE PRESUMPTION UNDER EXPLANATION 1 IS REBUTTABLE A ND NOT CONCLUSIVE. THE ASSESSEE CAN SUBMIT THE EXPLANATION AS THE ONUS SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PAR TICULARS OF THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS DULY SUBMITTED THE EX PLANATION. NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE W HICH MAY PROVE THAT THE REVENUE HAS DETECTED THE CONCEALMENT OR THE EXP LANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FALSE ONE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2). THIS NOTICE NOWHERE STATES ABOUT THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NO SUCH QUERY HA S BEEN RAISED BY THE 9 AO IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE REVISED RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 139(5) ALLOWS AN ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A REVISED RETURN IF HE DISCOVERS ANY OMISSI ON OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT THEREIN, BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FR OM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE COMPLETION OF TH E ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. ONCE THE REVISED RETURN IS SU BMITTED WHICH IS VALID AND WHICH IS WITHIN THE PERMISSIBLE TIME, THE ORIGI NAL RETURN LOSES ITS EXISTENCE AND IT GETS REPLACED BY THE REVISED RETUR N. 6 THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OU R OPINION, PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AN D HAS REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THE REVENUE UNDER EXPLANA TION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C). THIS EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE A FALSE EXPLANATION UNTIL AND UNLESS, IN OUR OPI NION, THE REVENUE PROVES THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE I S FALSE. IN OUR OPINION, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSE SSEE. 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BOTH THE RETURNS ON T HE ADVICE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS E NTITLED TO RELY ON THE EXPERTS OPINION OR NOT WHILE MAKING A CLAIM, THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICAL LTD. V CIT 288 ITR 196 (GUJ) IN THIS REGARD HAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, (I) THAT IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSES SEE KNEW OR HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT ITS CLAIM OF RS.1,83,492 AS REVENUE LOSS, WAS UNTRUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON JUNE 30, 1980, CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF RS.1,83,492 ON THE BASIS OF I TS CLAIM LODGED WITH THE INSURANCE COMPANY ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS AND D AMAGE TO ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY ON REPLACEMENT COST BASIS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD A BONA FIDE BELIEF ON THE BASIS OF ADVICE RECEIVED FR OM ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THAT THE LOSS OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF DE STRUCTION OF ASSETS SUCH AS PLANT AND MACHINERY, BUILDINGS, ELECTRICAL INSTALLATIONS ETC., 10 WAS OF REVENUE NATURE AND CLAIMED IT BY WAY OF DEDU CTION, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT WITHIN THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1)(C). PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED, IN RELATION TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.1,83,492. (II) THAT THE TRIBUNAL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, FOUND THAT THE DOUBLE CLAIM FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,112 WAS MADE DUE TO A BONA FIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. NO SOONER WAS AN ENTRY MADE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THIS YEAR, THAN WOULD IT TO AFFECT THE OPENING STOCK IN THE NEXT YEAR, AND HENCE IT COULD HAVE BEE N EASILY FOUND OUT AND WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN ANY ADVANTAGE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE PENALTY RELATABLE TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS .1,00,112 WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 8 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE REVERSE THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. 9 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 11-09-2 009 SD/- (P K BANSAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 11-09-2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. MANDIP FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD MAULI FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD MANAN FINSERVE PVT. LTD. 35, SHRIMALI SOCIETY, OPP. 11 NAVRANGPURA POLICE STATION, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 2. THE ITO, WARD-4(4), AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-VIII, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABA