M/s Prakash Arts Moving Media, Hyderabad V. The DCIT Cent Cir Vijayawada, Vijayawada

ITA 240/VIZ/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 56822 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D KOMALI KRISHNA
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 2

Judgement Text

ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S . 238 TO 241 /VIZAG/ 20 11 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1999 - 2000 TO 2002 - 0 3 RESPECTIVELY M/S. PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDIA HYDERABAD VS. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.AAEFP 3870H APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.V.N. HARI, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D. KOMALI KRISHNA, DR DATE OF HEAR I NG: 30.08.2011 DA TE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 .09.2011 ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE REGISTRY HAS ISSUED THE DEFECT MEMO TO MAKE UP THE DEFICIENCY IN TRIBUNAL FEES. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF AJITH KUMAR PANDEY VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 310 ITR 195 IN WH ICH THEIR LORDSHIP HAVE CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 2 71 HAS NO CONNECTION OR BEARING WITH THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREFORE AN APPEAL AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 IS COVERED BY CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 253(6) AND FEE PAYABLE IS ` 500/- ONLY. THROUGH THIS JUDGEMENT, THE HONBLE P ATNA HIGH COURT HAS OVER RULED THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BIDYUT KUMAR SETT VS. ITO 92 ITD 148 (CAL) (SB) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL FEES FOR AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) GOVERNED BY CLAUSE (A) TO (C) OF SECTION 253(6) AND NOT CLAUSE (D) THEREOF. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEP OSITED THE TRIBUNAL FEES OF ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 2 ` 500/- IN EACH CASE. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF JU DGEMENT OF THE PATNA HIGH COURT, THERE IS NO DEFICIENCY IN TRIBUNAL FEES AND THESE APPEALS ARE ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 3. ON MERIT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A P ARTNERSHIP FIRM DOING ADVERTISEMENT BUSINESS. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF PARTNER OF THE FIRM. CONS EQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000 TO 2002-03. DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, SOME LOOS E PAPERS WERE FOUND WHEREIN THE DETAILS RELATING TO THE SALES EARNED AN D THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.1997 TO 31.3.2002 WERE NOTED. A S PER THE SEIZED PAPERS, THE TOTAL SALES FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.1997 TO 31.3.200 2 WAS ` 16,27,36,575/- AND AFTER THE EXPENSES, THE NET PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT A T ` 1,72,28,612/-. THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ADMITTED THAT THE PROFIT WAS S HARED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTNERS. BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE A.O. W AS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPRESSED THE RECEIPTS AND INFLATED THE E XPENDITURE IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF INCOME. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ACTUAL RECEIPTS ACCORDING TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED INITIALLY AND THE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED WAS F OUND TO BE LESS THAN WHAT WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN. THE A.O. AFTER MAKING T HOROUGH ANALYSIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSION OF RECEI PTS/SALES FOR EACH YEAR AND ALSO INFLATED EXPENDITURE FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR S AND COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 4. BASED ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE ASSESSING O FFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE RELEVANT YEARS AND IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN QUANTUM REDUCI NG THE ADDITION. AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A). MEANWHILE, IN QUANTUM, THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL AND THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT 6% REDUCING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A). RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE CIT FURTHER REDUCED THE PENALTY ON SUSTAINED ADDITIONS. ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 3 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT TH E ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH CAN SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IN QUANTUM IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE APPROACH O F THE CALCULATION OF PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A) WAS NOT PROPER. EITHER THEY HAVE TO RELY UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND WORK OUT THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES FOUND THEREIN OR IGNORE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND COMPUTE THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THEY THEMSELVES HAVE ACCEPTED THAT NEITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE COMPLETE NOR THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE CO MPLETE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE WORKED OUT. UNDER THIS SITUATION, THEY HAVE ESTIMATED THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES AND THE TRIBUNAL ALSO MADE ITS OWN ESTIMATION. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THE ESTIMATION, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. BECAUSE FOR LEVYING TH E PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), THERE SHOULD BE AN EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHICH CAN SUG GEST THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HE HAS FURNISH ED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR PROVING OF THESE FACTS, THE REVEN UE IS REQUIRED TO BRING SOMETHING ON RECORD BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY. S INCE NOTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 6. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED A HEAV Y RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). SHE HOWEVER HAS CONTENDED THA T TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED ITS EXPENDITURE AND CONCEALED CERTAIN RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF THESE FINDINGS OF THE TR IBUNAL, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED. 7. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CA REFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A.O. HAS WORKED OUT ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 4 THE PROFIT. IN QUANTUM, MATTER HAS TRAVELLED UP TO THE TRIBUNAL AND TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE SEIZED MATERIAL NOR T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE COMPLETE. THE REVENUE ITSELF HAS ACCEPTED THESE FA CTS. THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER FELT THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NE T PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ESTIMATED AND TRIBUNAL ACCORDINGLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 12. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, DOCUMENTS PLACED O N RECORD, AND CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, SHOWING THE STATEMENTS OF P ROFITS AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURES, FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WE FIND THAT INITIALLY THESE COMPUTER GENERATED STATEMENTS WERE DENIED BY THE AS SESSEE BUT LATER ON IT WAS ADMITTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED CERTAIN A DDITIONAL INCOME HAVING ACCEPTED THAT CERTAIN SALES WERE SUPPRESSED. THE M AIN DOCUMENT WHICH HAS GENERATED ALL CONTROVERSY IS ANNEXURE-III IN WHICH A STATEMENT OF PROFIT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.1997 TO 31.3.2002 WAS PREPARED. IN THIS STATEMENT, TOTAL SALES WERE SHOWN AND CERTAIN EXPENDITURES WERE ALSO CLAIM ED. OUT OF THESE EXPENDITURES ONE OF THE MAJOR EXPENDITURES IS ON AC COUNT OF COMMISSION PAYMENT WHICH DID NOT FIND PLACE IN THE REGULAR BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES. WHILE COMPUTING THIS TOTAL PROFIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSED SALES AND EXCESS EXPENDITURES CL AIMED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MADE THE ADDITION OF BOTH TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES IN ALL IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE NEITHER RELIE D UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES NOR THE STATEMENT FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT APPEAR US TO BE CORRECT AS IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE DI-SECTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. EITHER THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE AND CONSIDER A LL ENTRIES FOUND THEREIN OR TO IGNORE IT. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT MA KE A PICK AND CHOOSE OF THE ENTRIES FOUND IN A DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPROACH OF THE CALCULATION OF PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EIT HER HE HAS TO RELY UPON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES AND WORK OUT THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES FOUND THEREIN OR IGNORE THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND COMPUTE THE PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT NEITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE COM PLETE NOR THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS ARE COMPLETE, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES CAN BE WORKED OUT. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A STAND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN THIS TYP E OF SITUATION, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES CAN BE REJECTED AND THE P ROFITS CAN BE ESTIMATED BY ADOPTING A PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE TO THE TOTAL SA LE OF THE ASSESSEES. BUT THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEES. 13. THE CIT(A) ALTOGETHER HAS ADOPTED A DIFFERENT F ORMULA TO COMPUTE THE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEES. HE HAS ALLOWED THE 15% O F THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE REST OF THE COMMISSION EXPENDITURES. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDE RSTAND HOW ONLY THE COMMISSION CAN BE CONSIDERED FROM THE SEIZED MATERI AL FOR DETERMINING THE ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 5 NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE DETAILS OF THE COMMISSION FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WE DO NOT FIND THAT MAJOR PART OF THE COMMISSION WAS PAID AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICIES. THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO DIFFERENT PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SECTORS AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS AGAINST THE PUBLIC POLICIES. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE THE MODE OF C OMPUTATION OF NET PROFIT ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A). 14. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE SEIZED MATERIAL A ND THE OTHER RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE NONE OF THE STATEMENTS OF THE ENTRIES (THE STATEMENTS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS) ARE COMPLETE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, T HE TRUE PROFITS OF THE ASSESSEES CANNOT BE WORKED OUT AND IN THIS TYPE OF SITUATION, INSTEAD OF PICKING FIGURES FROM HERE AND THERE, THE RIGHT COUR SE IS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES AND TO ESTIMATE THE INCOM E ON THE BASIS OF SALES DISCLOSED OR FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AD MITTEDLY, IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED MORE SALES THA N THE SALES DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE TOTAL SALES WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.16,27,36,575.50 PS. FOR THE PERIOD OF 1.4.1997 TO 31.3.2002 BUT THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INVO LVED ARE FROM 1999- 2000 TO 2002-03. THEREFORE, THE SALE FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE TOTAL SALES FOR DETERMINING TH E NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESS EE HAS FURNISHED A CHART DECLARING THEREIN THAT HOW MUCH PROFIT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES HAVING OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME. FROM THIS CH ART, THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS BETWEEN 2.38% TO 9.56%. THE MEA N OF THE PROFIT COMES TO 5.85%. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETA ILS OF THE ADDITIONS IF PARTICULAR PERCENTAGE IS ADOPTED TO DETERMINE THE N ET PROFIT. FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE THE EXTRACT OF THE CHART IS HEREUNDER: PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDIA (TOTAL INCOME VIS--VIS THE TOTAL TURNOVER) FIN. YEAR SERVICE TAX SALES AS PER ANNEX. TOTAL SALES PROFIT AS PER BOOKS MINUS DIVIDEND INCOME ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED TOTAL PROFIT % ON TOTAL SALES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1998 - 1999 1081141 24414957 25496098 420102 187000 607102 2.38 1999 - 2000 1 678506 36512282 38190788 706878 1375323 2082201 5.45 2000 - 2001 2047314 43052244 45099558 1007691 3304000 4311691 9.56 2001 - 2002 1423243 30321202 31744445 690359 535000 1225359 3.86 6230204 134300685 140530889 2825030 5401323 8226353 5.85 ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 6 FIN. YEAR TO TAL SALES 5% OF SALES 6% OF SALES TOTAL INCOME RETURNED DIFFERENCE (5%) DIFFERENCE (6%) 8 9 10 11 12 13 1998 - 1999 25496098 1274805 1529766 607102 667703 922664 1999 - 2000 38190788 1909539 2291447 2082201 - 172662 209246 2000 - 2001 45099558 2254978 270597 3 4311691 - 2056713 - 1605718 2001 - 2002 31744445 1587222 1904667 1225359 361863 679308 140530889 7026544 9134508 8226353 - 1199809 908155 15. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THIS CHART, WE FIND T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTED THE TOTAL SALES AT RS.14,05,30,889/- IN PLA CE OF RS.16,27,36,575/- FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SALES DECLAR ED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS FOR 5 YEARS, WHEREAS, THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEARS INVOLVED ARE 4 YEARS, THEREFORE, THE CORRESPONDING DEDUCTION IN SALE IS NECESSARY AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN ADOPTING THE FIGURE AT RS.14,05,30,889/- FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS . NOW THE QUESTION COMES WHAT SHOULD BE THE NET PROFIT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEES. NONE OF THE PARTIES HAVE BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CONTENTIONS AS TO WHAT WOULD BE THE NET PROFIT IN T HIS LINE OF BUSINESS. WE HOWEVER AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RECORDS O F THE ASSESSEES IN WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED, OF THE VIEW THAT 6% OF THE TOTAL SALE WOULD BE THE REASONABLE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES IN TH E IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, BECAUSE HE HIMSELF HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT RANG ING BETWEEN 2.38% TO 9.56% AND THE MEAN WAS SHOWN TO BE 5.85%. ACCORDIN G TO US, THIS IS THE ONLY MODE OF CALCULATION OF NET PROFIT OF THE ASSES SEES IN THE GIVEN SITUATION. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ADOPT THE NET PROFIT AT 6% IN ALL THE YEARS. IN ONE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAS SHOWN THE PROFIT AT 9.56% AND IN THAT YEAR NO ADDIT ION IS CALLED FOR AND THE DECLARED PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES IS TO BE ACCEPTED. IN REST OF THE YEARS, THE PROFIT IS TO BE ESTIMATED AT 6% OF THE RESPECTIVE T OTAL SALES. 8. THE ADDITIONS IN QUANTUM WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CHART FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS. NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S EITHER CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES AT 6% IN ALL THE YEARS AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE U S. BUT THIS RECORD IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. WE THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN ITA NOS.238 TO 241 OF 2011 PRAKASH ARTS MOVING MEDI A, HYDERABAD 7 THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE REVENUE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PE NALTY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.09.2011 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 05 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 COPY TO 1 M/S. PRAKASH ARTS M OVING MEDIA, D.NO.3 - 6 - 473/1, STREET NO.5, HIMAYATH NAGAR, HYDERABAD 2 DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA 3 THE CI T (CENTRAL) , HYDERABAD 4 THE CIT (A) - I, HYDERABAD 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM