Shri Babubhai Ganpatram Painter, Surat V. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(3)(1), Surat

ITA 240/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5193 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Business income; Peak credit; Question of law
• Section: 271(1)(c); 48; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (VIRTUAL HEARING) . . ./ I.T.A NO.240/SRT/2017 [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER, A/1/101, SATYAM APARTMENT, SIDDHARTH COMPLEX, CITY LIGHT ROAD, SURAT 395007. [PAN: ADPPP 8677 A] VS . THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT. / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT [ /ASSESSEE BY SHRI SAPNESH SHETH CA /REVENUE BY SMT. USHA SHROTE SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING: 20 . 0 4 .20 2 1 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 20 . 0 4 .202 1 /O R D E R PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMEBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2, SURAT, HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LD.CIT(A), DATED 21.08.2017 WHICH IN TURN ARISES ON PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (ACT) DATED 30.09.2015. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN IMPOSING PENALTY OF RS. 8,66,167/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS GATHERED FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.19,90,400/- IN THE SURAT PEOPLES CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AND ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES OF RS.2,01,800/- OF TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD., (TCS LTD.,) AND SALES OF SHARE OF NATIONAL ALUMINUM OF RS.1,03,620/-. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID INFORMATION, THE CASE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DATED 07.03.2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (A.O.) RECORDED THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S 147 MADE THREE ADDITIONS AS FOLLOWS: ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT INTO BANK AND INTEREST CREDITED ON SAVINGS BANK AS PER PARA NO. 9 RS. 19,90,438/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION IN SHARES AS PER PARA NO. 9 (2,01,800 + 1,03,620) RS. 3,05,420/- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED TRANSACTION IN SHARES AS PER PARA NO. 9.1 RS. 6,83,400/- 3. THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER INITIATED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ADDITION OF RS.19,90,438/- WAS UPHELD, ADDITION OF RS. 3,05,420/- WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 275,459/- AND ADDITIONS OF SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 3 RS. 6,83,400/- WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 3,42,400/-. AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT, THE AO PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED PENALTY @100% OF THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A). THE A.O. WORKED OUT THE PENALTY OF RS. 8,66,167/- VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2015. ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ACTION OF A.O. IN LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS UPHELD. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO MADE THREE ADDITIONS, WHICH WERE UPHELD BY LD. CIT(A) IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT, WHEREIN THE FIRST ADDITION OF RS.19,90,400/- WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 2,56,590/-, AS A PEAK CREDIT, THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,05,420/-, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 2,75,459/- BY LD. CIT(A) , WAS FURTHER REDUCED TO RS.1,37,296/-, BEING 10% OF SHARE TRANSACTION OF RS. 13,77,296/-. THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,42,400/- WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS RESTRICTED AT THE PEAK CREDIT, SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 4 THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED ON ESTIMATED BASIS. SIMILARLY, THE SECOND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRANSACTION IT WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.1,37,730/- BY TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO 10% OF RS.13,77,296/-. ON THIRD ADDITION OF RS. 3,42,400/, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THIS ADDITION CONSISTENT OF THREE ITEMS, ONE LOAN TRANSACTION OF RS. 1,05,000/- FROM BHAVIN DESAI, RS. 1,00,000/- FROM TEXTILE TRADING RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS. 1,37,000/- FROM TEXTILE BUSINESS WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THESE ADDITIONS WERE NOT PRESSED DURING THE HEARING BEFORE TRIBUNAL DUE TO SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT, HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS WERE EXPLAINED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN PENALTY APPEAL. ON THE BASIS AFORESAID SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD SUBMIT THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS ARE BASICALLY MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. IT IS ARGUED THAT SETTLED LAW THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IS LEVIEABLE ON ESTIMATED ADDITION. 6. IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF MURARILAL R AGARWAL IT (SS)A NO.573 & 615/AHD/2012 DATED 05.07.2013; SHRI OJAS A MEHTA IN ITA NO.296 & 297/AHD/2013 DATED 23.08.2013; NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT 249 ITR 0125 (GUJ); CIT VS. JALARAM OIL MILLS 253 ITR 0192 (GUJ); SHRI SANJAYSINGH B.GOHIL IN ITA NO.3024/AHD/2013 DATED 22.03.2017 AND NAVJIVAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT 252 ITR 417 (GUJA). SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 5 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.SR.DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO, WHICH WERE ON APPEAL SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND ON FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT AS WELL AS CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 48 TO 52. WE FIND THAT BOTH THE PARTIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS THAT ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN CASH FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT AND DEPOSITED THE SAID CASH IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AFTER THE INTERVAL OF TIME. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT ONLY UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS COULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX. IF AN ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF EARLIER WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE SAME ACCOUNT, IN THAT CASE, THE AO COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED TO SUBJECT BOTH CREDITS TO TAX. WE FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE TRADING RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF TEXTILE BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT CASH DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF ITS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, ON THE SAME TIME, THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS COULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AS THE ASSESSEE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS UNSATISFACTORY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT ONLY PEAK CREDIT AT RS. 2, 56, 590 AS APPEARING AS ON 18. 03. 2008 AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 52 CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM WITH VARIOUS BANKS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE PEAK CREDITS OF SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 6 RS.2, 56, 590 FOR ADDITIONS AS AGAINST THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 19, 90 400 APPEARING IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS. OUR ABOVE VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY DECISION OF HONOURABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES [2002] 258 ITR 654 (GUJARAT) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING OF THE MATERIAL THAT THERE WAS SUPPRESSION OF INVESTMENT IN ACQUIRING THE GOODS WHICH ARE SUBJECT OF UNDISCLOSED SALES, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED SALES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ESTIMATED PROFITS AND EMBEDDED IN SALES FOR WHICH THE NET PROFIT RATE WAS ADOPTED, NO REFERABLE QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. SIMILARLY, THE HON`BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SHRI INDERJEET ZANDUSINGH TOMAR TAX APPEAL NO. 908 OF 2015 DATED 22.12.2015, HAS OBSERVED THAT IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) AND TRIBUNAL COMMITTED NO ERROR. THERE WAS NOTHING WITH THE DEPARTMENT TO SUGGEST THAT ENTIRE DEPOSIT OF RS. 2.46 CRORES REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF ADDING 1% OF RS. 2.46 CRORES ADOPTED PEAK CREDIT OF THEORY, WHICH WAS ALSO UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUND NO. 2: IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN THE HEARING BEFORE US, EX-CONSEQUENTI, IT IS TREATED AS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9. GROUND NO. 3 STATES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2, 75, 459 AT THE RATE 20% OF SALES PROCEEDS OF SHARES FOR WANT OF DETAILS IN RESPECT OF SALE TRANSACTIONS, IN SUBSTITUTION OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 3, 05, 420 AS MADE BY THE AO ALLEGING UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTION OF SHARES. 10. FACTS APROPOS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 3, 05, 420, IN SHARES OF TCS LTD. NALCO. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS MADE PARTLY BY FINANCE AND PARTLY OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES AND PARTLY FROM BANK ACCOUNT BY WAY WITHDRAWALS BY CHEQUE WAS NOT FIND FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. IN APPEAL, THE CIT (A) OBSERVED AFTER GOING THROUGH REMAND REPORT THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE NARRATIONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF NATURE OF CHEQUE/TRANSFER DEPOSITS. HOWEVER, THE AO IN IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT PROFIT ELEMENT IN RESPECT OF SALE TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE ENHANCED TO RS.13,77,296. THOUGH THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN AN SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 7 OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY ON THIS, HE DID NOT ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN HIS REPLY AND EXPRESS INABILITY TO FURNISH ANY FURTHER INFORMATION. THEREFORE, PROFIT FROM SHARES WAS ESTIMATED AT 20% OF SALE PROCEEDS (CHEQUE/TRANSFER DEPOSITS OF RS. 13, 77, 296) RS. 2,75, 495/-. 12. BEING, AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SHARES TRANSACTION REMAINS VERY LOW HENCE, THE ESTIMATION @ 20% OF SHARE TRANSACTION IS ON HIGHER SIDE HENCE, SAME MAY BE SCALED DOWN. 13. PER CONTRA, THE LD. SR. D.R. RELIED ON LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE PROFIT ELEMENT IN SHARE TRANSACTION IS NOT STATIC AND FLUCTUATING ON THE MARKET CONDITIONS. THEREFORE, TAKING A HOLISTIC VIEW , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTION PROFIT BE RESTRICTED TO 10% OF RS. 13,77,296 WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS. 1,37,730, HENCE, ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO THIS EXTENT AND BALANCE IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID DETAILS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS NO. (I) & (II) SUSTAINED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE. THUS, NO PENALTY ON THESE TWO ADDITIONS WILL SURVIVE. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF OF RS.3,42,400/-, IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE A.O. PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 /147, BY TAKING VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. HOWEVER, BEFORE LD. CIT(A) IN PENALTY APPEAL THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,42,400/, CONSISTENT OF THREE ITEMS, ONE LOAN TRANSACTION OF RS. 1,05,000/- FROM BHAVIN DESAI, RS. 1,00,000/- FROM TEXTILE TRADING RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS. 1,37,000/- FROM TEXTILE SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 8 BUSINESS WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION OF LOAN AND OTHER EVIDENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) NEITHER EXAMINED SUCH EVIDENCES NOR GAVE HIS FINDING ON SUCH EVIDENCE. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THIS PART OF ADDITIONS WERE NOT PRESSED BY ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. IT IS SETTLED POSITION UNDER LAW THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT. THE LOWER AUTHORITY WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF PENALTY MUST CONSIDERED WHETHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED REASONABLE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES QUA THE ADDITION, DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR NOT. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE FACTS REGARDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,42,400/- BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, NO FINDINGS WERE GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) ON SUCH EVIDENCES. THUS, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTUAL DECISION AND THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TWO ADDITIONS ARE BASICALLY MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS, WE FIND MERIT IN HIS SUBMISSION. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE ON ESTIMATED ADDITION. SO FAR AS ADDITION NO (III) IS CONCERNED, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WITH REGARD TO THESE ADDITIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EVIDENCES, ON WHICH NO FINDINGS WAS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE REASONABLY EXPLAINED THE FACTS QUA THIS ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(A. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, SHRI BABUBHAI GANPATRAM PAINTER VS. ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), SURAT./ ITA NO.240/SRT/2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 9 EVEN ON THIRD ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 20 TH APRIL 2021 BY PLACING RESULT ON NOTICE BOARD. SD/- SD/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( /JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 20 TH APRIL, 2021 / #SGR COPY OF ORDER SENT TO:- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT