Shri Virambhai Ramabhai Patel, Himatnagar V. The Jt.CIT.,S.K.Range, Himatnagar

ITA 2230/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0430 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIP KR MAJUMDAR
• Assessee Lawyers: A C SHAH
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUN TANT MEMBER VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL PROP. INTERNATIONAL AGRI EQUIPMENTS, OLD MARKET YAR, HIMMATNAGAR-383001 DIST: SABARKANTHA PAN NO. ABCPP 1555 C (APPELLANT) VS THE JCIT, S.K. RANGE, HIMATNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI PRADIP KR. MAJUMDAR, S R. D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI A.C.SHAH, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 13-2-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-3-2 013 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-VIII DATED 22-08-2012. ITA NO. 2230/AHD/2012 A.Y.:-2008-09 I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 271D OF THE ACT FOR RS. 13,75,000/- FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOS ITS IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS. 3. FACTS IN RESPECT OF THIS PENALTY U/S 271D AS TH EY EMERGED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) UPTO ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE AC T, PENALTY IS ATTRACTED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT, WHICH STIPULATES THAT NO PERSON SHALL TAKE OR ACCEPT FROM ANOTHER PERSON ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN B Y AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- OR MORE, WHETHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM HUF EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- AS UNDER: DATE AMOUNT OF CASH LOAN (RS.) 01/12/2007 80,000/- 04/12/2007 25,000/- 05/12/2007 2,00,000/- 06/12/2007 2,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 19/12/2007 70,000/- 21/12/2007 1,00,000/- 24/12/2007 1,50,000/- 25/12/2007 2,50,000/- TOTAL 13,75,000 THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THAT REASONABLE CAUSE F OR TAKING SUCH CASH LOANS. THERE WAS NO IMMINENT GROUND FOR TAKIN G CASH LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE MONEY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM PRANTIJ TO HIMATNAGAR ON WORKING DAYS. AT BOTH THE PLACES, BA NKING FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS HUF HAD B ANK ACCOUNTS IN THEIR NAMES. UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE ACT, IT IS PROVIDED THAT I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 3 NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THE PROVISION S OF RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER VARIOUS SECTIONS, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE ON THE PERSON IN CASE HE PROVES THAT THERE WAS A REASONABL E CAUSE FOR THE SAID FAILURE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED ANY R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING CASH LOANS OF RS. 13.75 LACS FROM HUF. THUS, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, P ENALTY U/S271D OF THE ACT EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF CASH LOAN OF RS. 13. 75, LACS IS LEVIED. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLANS ACCORDINGLY. 4. LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMED THIS PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UND ER:- 2.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT VERY CAREFULLY. THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PE NALTY OF RS. 13,75,000/- U/S. 271D OF THE IT ACT FOR ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS AS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PROVED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR TAKING SUCH CASH LOANS. THE A PPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE JCIT HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY ON T HE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR AC CEPTING THE DEPOSIT IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT IN HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND BONAFIDE AND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE DEPOSITED IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 4048 AND THEREAFTER THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO CC HP A/C. FOR BUSINESS NEE DS. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT IS ACCEPTED FROM HUF. SRI VIRAMBHAI R. PATEL IS THE SAME PERSON WHE THER AS AN INDIVIDUAL OR AS KARTA OF HUF. IN OTHER WORDS, THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF ACCEPTING ANY DEPOSIT FROM SELF. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT UNDER THE I.T. ACT, HUF AND INDIVIDUAL AR E SEPARATELY ASSESSED BUT UNDER THE GENERAL LAW, THE ASSESSEE VI RAMBHAI R. PATEL IS THE SAME PERSON, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATIO N OF SECTION 269SS. I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 4 5. FURTHER AGGRIEVED NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSION AND THE CASE LAWS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. D .R. ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ACCORDING TO HIM THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING DEPOSITS IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THIS PENALTY FOR THE SAME REASO N. FURTHER WE FIND THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271D ASSESSEE INTERALIA HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SHRI VIRAMBHAI PATEL AS KA RTA OF THE HUF BROUGHT CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES FROM HIS BUSINESS O F AGRI SERVICE CENTRE, TAJPUR KAMP AND DEPOSITED THE SAME IN HIS I NDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT NO. 4048 MAINTAINED WITH HIMATNAGAR NAGARIK SAHAKARI BANK FROM WHERE HE TRANSFERRED THOSE AMOUNTS IN HIS LOAN A/C. 613 FOR IMMEDIATE BUSINESS NEEDS. THUS IT WAS BUSINESS EXIGENCY THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM HUF TO INDL. ACCOUNT BY THE SAME PERSON. IT IS NOT LOAN AS ALLEGED IN THE NOTICE. FOR ACCEPTING LOAN, PRESENCE OF TWO PERSONS IS NECESSARY. HERE THERE I S ONLY ONE PERSON SRI VIRAMBHAI, SRI VIRAMBHAI CAN NOT GIVEN LOAN TO HIMSELF. THERE ARE MANY DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURTS AND THE TRIBU NALS HOLDING THAT WHERE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE AMOUNT IS TAKEN FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OR PAID TO FAMILY MEMBERS IT IS NOT A LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OR SECTION 269T ARE NOT APPLICABLE. SOME OF THEM ARE DISCUSSED BELOW. I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 5 (I) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NATWARLAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PARE KH (2008) 303 ITR 5 (GUJ) THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT WHERE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVE D IN CASH OR PAID IN CASH WERE BOOK ENTRIES AND WERE PART OF TRA NSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF FAMILY MEMBERS, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS AND SEC. 269T SO AS TO A TTRACT PENALTY. (II) IN THE CASE OF MOHAN KARKARE VS CIT (1995) 52 ITD 2 36 (IND-TRI) IT WAS HELD THAT MONEY RECEIVED IN CASH BY SON FROM FATHER DID NOT AMOUNT TO A LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND , THEREFORE, PENALT Y U/S 271D WAS NOT LEVIABLE. SIMILARLY, IN SHIV NANDAN KAUSHIK VS . DY. CIT (22) 74TTJ (CHD-TRI) 761, IT WAS HELD THAT TRANSACTION O F RS. 1 LAC BETWEEN SON AND FATHER COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE A LO AN TO FATHER, THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S. 271D WAS NOT LEVIED. (III) THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH FROM WIFE FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS ALSO NOT TREATED AS LOAN AS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS FAMILY PROPERTY ONLY. ITO VS. TARLOCHAN SINGH (200 3) 81 TTJ (ASR-TRI) 1021. (IV) BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN CIT VS. HEROS PUBLICITY SERVI CES (2001) 248 ITR 256 AND (LUCK-TRI) IN CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA (2006) 100 ITD 93 HAVE HELD THAT ASSESSEE ACTING AS AGENT OR P RINCIPAL IS WORKING ONLY FIDUCIARY CAPACITY AND IN SUCH CASES, PENALTY U/S. 271D COULD NOT BE LEVIABLE. (V) THERE ARE SEVERAL DECISIONS WHERE PENALTY LEVIED U/ S. 271D FOR LOANS TAKEN FROM HUF WERE DELETED. (I) NARAYAN RAM CHHABDA VS. ITO (2005) 96 ITD 163 (JODH - TRI)(TM) (II) ITO VS. SUMIT M KASLIWAL (2000) 68 TTJ 35 (PUNE). (III) ITO VS. RAJENDRA TRADING CO. (1994) 48 ITD 210 (CHD .) 9. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS CITED IN PARA 8(V) AB OVE, IT CAN BE HELD THAT- (I) THERE WAS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH FOR WHICH NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 6 (II) APPLYING THE HON. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CAS E OF MLOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF UP (1979 ) 118 ITR 326, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF DR. DEE PAK MUCHALA (1997) 58 TTJ (BOM) 524, A DENSITY BY PROFESSION, I T CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXCEPTED TO BE WELL VERSE WITH FAST CHANGING LAWS. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE O N MUCH STRONGER FOOTING, AND THEREFORE, IT CAN BE HELD THAT THERE W AS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND HENCE NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. (III) AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF SUNIL M. KALSIWAL ( SUPRA) ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN BY INDIVIDUAL FROM HIS HUF OF WH ICH THE ASSESSEE IS THE KARTA, IT DOES NOT WARRANT THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY BECAUSE THERE IS COMMON CONTROL OF FUNDS WITH THE A SSESSEE. WHEN ONE PERSON ACTS IN DIFFERENT CAPACITIES, IT CAN BE SAFELY SAID THAT THE IT IS DEPOSIT FROM SELF TO SELF OR ELSE FROM ONE PO CKET TO ANOTHER. (IV) BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND HUF HAVE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND HENCE IT CAN NOT BE TREATED A LOAN TO WHICH PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 269SS APPLY. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S. 271D MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. 7. BEFORE CIT(A) ALSO THIS SUBMISSION WAS REITERATE D AS UNDER:- 8. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE QUESTION O F LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271D DOES NOT ARISE SINCE:- (A) THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BONAFIDE AND GENUINE IN AS MUCH AS NO DOUBT IS EXPRESSED WHATSOEVER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271D; (B) DEPOSIT IS ACCEPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAINTAIN ING THE BALANCED OF CC HP A/C. AND CURRENT ACCOUNT; (C) SO FAR AS BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF INTERNATIONAL AGR I EQUIPMENTS PROP. VIRAMBHAI R. PATEL-INDIVIDUAL IS CONCERNED, I T IS ONLY BOOK ENTRY AND THAT THERE IS NO ANY CASH DEPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT; I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 7 (D) THE TRANSACTIONS ARE BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL AND HUF I.E. THE SAME PERSON; (E) THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS. IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE CA SUE FOR ACCEPTING CASH DEPOSITS FOR THE REASONS STATED HEREIN ABOVE. 9. THE ABOVE VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING JUDICIA L DECISIONS: 9.1 CIT VS. BALAJI TRADERS 303 ITR 312 (MAD) 9.2 CHANDRA CEMENT LTD. VS. DCIT 68 TTJ 35 9.3 CIT VS. BHAGWATI PRASAD BAJORIA HUF 263 ITR 487 9.4 CIT VS. NATVARLAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PAREKH 303 ITR 5 (G UJ) 9.5 VIR SALES CORPORATION VS. ACIT 50 TTJ130 (AHD) 9.6 CIT VS. MANOJ LALWANI 260 ITR 590 (JAI) 10.1 THE ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSIT IN CASH IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS IS TECHNICAL AND VENIAL BREACH IF THE TRANSACTION I S OTHERWISE BONAFIDE AND GENUINE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE TRANSACTION IS GENUINE AND BONAFIDE AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENA LTY DOES NOT ARISE. THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LT D. VS. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR OBSERVED AS UNDER:- AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEE DINGS AND PENALTY, WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBL IGED, EITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR GUILTY OF CONDU CT, CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD TO ITS O BLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFU L TO DO SO. WHETHER PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORI TY TO BE EXERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVA NT CIRCUMSTANCES. EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHOR ITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENALTY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF TH AT THE OFFENDER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE S TATUTE. I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 8 THE GURJAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARISIDDHA CON STRUCTION P. LTD 244 ITR 417 HAS FOLLOWED THE ABOVE REFERRED SC JUDG MENT. FURTHER THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT HAS ALSO DISMISSED THE SLP AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. CHOWGULE [252 ITR 60 (STAT)]. 7.1 BUT THERE IS NO FINDING OF EITHER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THESE SUBMISSIONS. THE FACTUAL POSITION THAT ASSESSEE SR I VIRAMBHAI PATEL WHO IS PARTNER IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF INTERNATIONAL AGRO EQUIPMENTS AT BHAVNAGAR IS ALSO IN HUF CAPACITY RUNNING A BUSINES S IN THE NAME OF AGRI SERVICE CENTRE AT TAJPUR CAMP IS NOT DISPUTED. THI S IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SRI VIRAMBHAI PATEL BROUGHT CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES FROM HIS BUSINESS OF AGRO SERVICE CENTRE TAJPUR CAMP AND DEPOSITED THE S AME IN HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT NO. 4048 MAINTAINED WITH HIMATNAGAR NARARIK SAHAKARI BANK FROM WHERE HE TRANSFERRED THESE AMOUNTS IN HIS RUNN ING ACCOUNT NO. 613 FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE. THUS THE SAME PERSON I.E. MR. VI RAMBHAI PATEL WAS ACTING IN TWO DIFFERENT CAPACITIES. ON THESE FACTS, THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF CHANDRA CEMENT LTD VS. DCIT REP ORTED IN 68 TTJ 35 IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE WHEREIN FOLLOWING WAS HELD:- WHEN ONE SINGLE INDIVIDUAL IS MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF TWO CONCERNS AND THE DECISION TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS FROM THE ONE CONCERN TO ANOTHER OR TO REPAY THE FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN SAID TO HAVE BEEN LARGELY INFLUENCED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL, IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT TRANSACTION PARTAKE THE NATURE OF EITHER DEPOSIT OR LOAN. FURT HER THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN IMPEACHED AS NON GENUINE OR BOGUS IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS. THE ARGUMENTS AT THIS STAGE THAT DEPA RTMENT WANTS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS IS ONLY FOR THE SAKE OF ARGU MENTS. IT WAS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOULD HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THE INGENUITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THUS, FOR ALL THESE REASON, THE PROV ISIONS OF S. 269SS ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE PENALT IES LEVIED ARE, I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 9 THEREFORE, CANCELLED. EVEN IF THEY WERE TO APPLY , IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE THE ACTION OF THE APP ELLANT IN ACCEPTING THE FUNDS IN CASH CAN BE ASCRIBED TO ITS BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT PROVISION OF S. 269SS WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. BONA BIDE BELIEF COUPLED WITH THE GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WILL CONSTITUTE REASONABLE CAUSE IN TH IS CASE. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASS ESSING OFFICER U/S 271D AND SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K.TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 22 /03/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , ! , '# / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. $% &' / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , ( / ' ) ! , '# I.T.A NO.2230/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO VIRAMBHAI RAMABHAI PATEL VS. JCIT 10 STRENGTHENED PREPARATION & DELIVERY OF ORDERS IN TH E ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 13-03-2013 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE N.A. 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 19-03-2013 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 20-03-2013 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION XXXX 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 21-03-2013 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 01-04-2013 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THIS FILE YES 9) ORDER SENT TO BENCH CLERK 23-03-2013