Nabros Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Kheda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-8(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2340/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67990 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Wrong claim
• Section: 80HHC; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2004-05 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD N.H. NO. 8, AT KAJIPURA, TAL & DIST. KHEDA. PAN: AAACN7886N VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SH. K.C.MATHEWS, SR.D.R., ASSESSEE(S) BY : SMT. URVASHI SODHAN, AR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 22/11/2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/11/2013 / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 18.05.2010. 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT ON AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,42,540/- FROM SALE PROCEEDS NOT REALISED IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE AS W ELL AS AN AMOUNT OF RS 15,79,434/- BEING AMOUNT OF SALES WHIC H WERE SUBSEQUENTLY WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 2 - 3. THE BRIEF OF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF RS 68,46,284/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED AUDITORS REPORT UNDER FORM NO 10CCAC WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE REALIZATIO N OF THE OUTSTANDING EXPORTS OF RS, 98,90,551/- HAVE BEEN CO NSIDERED IN THE TOTAL EXPORT TURNOVER. DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT RECEIVED THE EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 15,79,434/ - AND RS. 83,11,117/- BUT RBIS APPROVAL POST-FACTO EXTEN SION OF TIME WAS AWAITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REDUCED THE ABO VE TWO AMOUNTS FROM EXPORT TURNOVER FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HH C. AGAINST THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF RS. 66,46,284/- U/S 80HHC ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF ONLY 20,45,0 41/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM IN RESPECT OF E XPORTS OF RS 80,60,573/- AND APPEAL EFFECT WAS GIVEN BY THE A O ON 10.07.2007, BEFORE PASSING OF THE PENALTY ORDER AND DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS ALLOWED AT RS 20,45,041/- IN PLACE OF RS 27,72,753/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/ S 271(I)(C) OF THE ACT BEING HUNDRED PER CENT OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON RS 13,39,630/- BEING EXCESS CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 6. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE AO BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT WHILE GIVING E FFECT TO THE ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 3 - ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON AN AMOUNT OF RS. 80,60,573/- OUT OF RS. 83,11,117/- AND FILED COPY OF THE ORDER. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT WHEN IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT SUSTAINED, THE QUES TION OF LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80,60,573/- DOES NO T ARISE. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON RS 15,79,434/- IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED AND HENCE IT WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER RECEIVING THE PERMISSION IN R ESPECT THEREOF IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTIFICATE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN FORM NO. 10CCAC U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT WHEREIN IT WAS MENTIONE D IN COLUMN NO. 18 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR EXT ENSION OF TIME FOR THE REALIZATION OF EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS AS ON 12.12.2008. SO THE TOTAL EXPORTS WERE CONSIDERED F OR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FO R DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON THE TWO EXPORTS AS THE SAME WERE NOT R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN O F INCOME. MERE MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED F OR EXTENSION OF TIME IN RESPECT OF SOME EXPORT PROCEEDS DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE OF THE CHARGE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF HIS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE RIGHT COURSE O F ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN THAT SINCE BY 1.11.2004 THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT REALIZED EXPORT PROCEEDS IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TR EATED AS AN ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 4 - EXPORT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 80HHC. THE ASSES SEE WAS FREE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC UNDER THE SPE CIFIC PROVISION U/S 155(13) OF THE ACT WHICH ENTITLED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION U/S 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITHIN FOUR YEARS OF RECEIPT OF EXPORT PROCEEDS AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS DUTY-BOUND TO GIVE EFFECT OF SUCH EXPOR T REALIZATION IN VIEW OF THE SECTION 155(13) OF THE ACT. HE FURT HER OBSERVED THAT THE EXPORT PROCEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 80,63 ,073/- WAS REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 12.12.2006 I.E. FE W DAYS BEFORE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). AMOUNT OF RS 2,42,540/- WAS OUTSTANDING EVEN AS ON TODAY ON W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. SIMILARLY, EXPORT SALE PR OCEEDS OF RS 15,79,434/- COULD NOT BE REALIZED BY THE ASSESSE E AND HENCE WAS WRITTEN OFF IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC ON TH E AMOUNT OF RS 83,11,117/- AND RS 15,79,434/- WAS PRIMA FACI E WRONG CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE EXPORT PROCEEDS HAD N OT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1). THE AUDITOR HAS ONLY MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REALIZATION OF EXPORT PROCEEDS. CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT IN HIS OPINION WRONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON SUCH AMOUNTS OF RS 83,11,117/- AND RS 15,79,434/- ON WHICH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS LEVI ABLE. HE OBSERVED THAT CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWED THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN RESPECT OF EXPORT PROCEEDS OF RS 80,63,573/- AND THE APPEAL EFFECT HAD ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 5 - ALSO BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10.07.2 007 I.E. BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE PENALTY ORDER. AS PER TH IS, THE REVISED DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC COMES TO RS 27,72,753/- AS AGAI NST RS 20,25,041/- ALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 8.11.06. HE ALSO HELD THAT IN HIS OPINION PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS NOT LEVIABLE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS 80,63,573/-. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF RS 15,79,434/- HAD BEEN SUBSEQUENTLY WRIT TEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC HAD BEEN MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS LIABLE FOR PENA LTY U/S 271(1)(C). ON THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS 2,42,540/- W HICH WAS OUTSTANDING EVEN AS ON TODAY ON WHICH DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO SUBJECT TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). HE THEREFORE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO CONSIDER THE AMOUNT OF RS 2,42,540/- INSTEAD OF RS 83,11,117/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). HE ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY ON R S 15,79,434/- @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE ASSESS EE. 8. BEING AGREED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE CERTIFICATE OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT WHEREIN HE HAD MENTIONED THAT NECESSARY PERMISSION HAS BEEN AP PLIED FOR WITH RBI FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR REALIZATION OF E XPORT PROCEEDS AND IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS THE E NTIRE FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED, ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 6 - THEREFORE THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT LIABLE TO PENALTY. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACE D ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. WEST INN LTD. UNDER TAX APPEAL NO. 1980 OF 2008 DATED 25.11.2009 AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE DULY AUDITED AND TAX REPORT WAS FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT CERTIFIED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN A CCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. THE TRIBUNA L WAS THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS BOUND T O RELY ON TECHNICAL EXPERT ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PROVISIONS CON TAINED IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE COMPLEX AND COMPLICATED AND THER EFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DELETED THE LEVY OF PENA LTY BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE CO URT IN THE CASE OF BTX CHEMICAL PVT. LTD. VS. CIT 288 ITR 196( GUJ.). THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED B E DELETED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE FULLY JUSTIFIED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUED THAT PEN ALTY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED AS EVEN AFTER THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THE EXPORT PROCEEDS WERE NOT REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ULTI MATELY, THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF THE AMOUNTS IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) LEVIED ON THE G ROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED A DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC AT RS 66,46, 282/- ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 7 - WHEREAS THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY ALLOWED WAS RS 20,45,04 1/-. THE DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS ALLOWED AT RS 20,45,041/- I N PLACE OF RS 66,46,282/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE GROUND T HAT SALE PROCEEDS OF RS 83,11,117/- AND RS 15,79,434/- WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED U/ S 80HHC. 12. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE PENALTY ON THE AM OUNT OF RS 83,11,117/- TO AN AMOUNT OF RS 2,42,540/- ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOUND THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC WAS INADMISSIBLE ON THE AMOUNT OF RS 2,42,540/- IN PLACE OF RS 83,11,117/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO AS BECAUSE EXPORT PROCEEDS OF RS 80,63,573/- WAS RE CEIVED ON 10.07.2007 WHICH WAS BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER BY THE AO. THUS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRME D LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM ON DEDU CTION U/S 80HHC IN RESPECT OF NON-RECEIPT OF EXPORT PROCEEDS OF RS 2,42,540/- AND RS 15,79,434. 13. STILL AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS IN PRESENT APPEAL. 14. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH DEDUCTI ON U/S 80HHC WAS CLAIMED AT RS 66,46,284/- WAS BASED ON TH E AUDIT REPORT OF A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THUS THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. FURTHER, FROM THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO. 10CCAC PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE AUDIT REPORT THAT THE ENTIRE S ALE PROCEEDS OF EXPORT HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN SIX MONTHS ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 8 - FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN THE AUDI T REPORT, IT WAS STATED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR THE EXTENTION OF PERI OD FOR THE REALIZATION OF OUTSTANDING EXPORT SALES PROCEEDS AS ON THE DATE OF REPORT, SO TOTAL EXPORT ARE CONSIDERED FOR 80HHC DEDUCTION PURPOSE. 15. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED TO THE RBI FOR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR RECEIVING EXPORT SALES PROCEEDS. ON THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL COURT IN THE CASE OF WEST IN N LTD. (SUPRA) AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RE LIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) 323 ITR 158(S) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DR. 16. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. HAS HELD AS UNDER: A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULA RS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUS T HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCO RRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASS ESSEE TO ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 9 - PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STR ETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUN T TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LI ABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPL IED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 17. WE FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT EXP ORT PROCEEDS OF RS 2,42,540/- AND RS 15,79,434/- WERE NOT RECEIV ED AT ALL AND WERE WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE AND THUS THE ASSES SEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACT THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN RESPE CT OF THE SAME IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 18. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE WRITING OFF OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS WERE MADE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND AFTER FILING O F THE RETURN ITA NO.2340/AHD/2010 M/S. NABROS PHARMA P. LTD. VS. ITO, WARD-8(4), AHME DABAD. FOR A.Y. 2004-05 - 10 - FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE A BOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS NO FALSITY IN ANY PART ICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND BY THE REVENUE AND MERELY A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF A CERTIFICATE OF A TECHNICAL EXPERT WHICH IS ULTIMATELY FOUND AS NOT ALLOWABLE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. WE THEREFO RE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED ON RS 2,42,540/- AND RS 15,79,434/- AND MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT. TH US, THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY, THE 29 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2013 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ( N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 29 /11/2013 GHANSHYAM MAURYA, SR. P.S. TRUE COPY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. !' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. #$#% ' '& / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' '&() / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. )*' %, ' ' % , ,-$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *./ 0 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 1 11 1/ // /,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ,' #2 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % ' ' % , , , , ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ ,-$ / ITAT, AHMEDABAD