Sh. Chander Pal Aggarwal, Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2461/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6733 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R S ADLAKHA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Time period of passing order
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2461/DEL/2015 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL 3611, RAJA PARK, SHAKUR BASTI, RANI BAGH, DELHI. ADNPA1455D VS ITO WARD 25(2) NEW DELHI. ASSESSEE BY SH. R.S. ADLAKHA, ADV. REVENUE BY SH. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.02.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, NEW DELHI FOR A.Y. 2006-07, WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,30,401/-, IMPOSE D UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF R S. 10,55,497/- FROM FIVE OF HIS CO-TENANTS ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRICITY USAGE CHARGES TO BE PAID TO NEW DELHI POWER LIMITED (NDPL) AND THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN IN THE BOO KS AS DEPOSITED IN FORM OF ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 2 OF 11 CASH. THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE NATURE OF CASH DEPOSITS WAS NOT PROVED AND HE ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. SUBSEQUENTLY, PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED AND A PENALTY OF RS. 3,30,401/-, WAS IMPOSED WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). NOW, THE ASSESSEE HAS APPROACHED T HE TRIBUNAL ASSAILING THE CONFIRMATION OF THE PENALTY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT (A) HAD N OT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BOTH ON FACTS AS WELL AS ON LAW. 3. THAT THERE ARE NO FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT AS WEL L AS PENALTY ORDER THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN ARE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS ARE FALSE THUS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. 4. THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HAD BEEN WRONGLY IMP OSED DURING THE PENDENCY OF QUANTUM APPEAL PENDING BEFORE ITAT, NEW DELHI. 5. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DURING THE PENDENCY OF QUANTUM APPEAL PENDING BEFORE ITAT, NEW DELHI IS UN JUSTIFIED, UN- LAWFUL AND ILLEGAL. 6. THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD AS PROVIDED U/S 274 OF THE I.T. A CT, 1961 THUS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 3 OF 11 7. THAT A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SIMPLY AS A CON SEQUENCE OF AN ADDITION BEING MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS. 8. THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER C ONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME NOR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME THUS NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES ITS PLEA TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HEARING OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,30,401/- IMP OSED U/S 271(1)(C ) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSE D DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AND AS SUCH THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS PREMATURE IN TERMS OF SECTION 275(1)(A) AND HENCE, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT OF BOMBAY IN R.B. SHREERAM DURGAPRASAD VS. CIT NAGPUR 237 TAXMAN 189. ON MERITS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED A COPY OF ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE QUANTU M APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2329/DEL/2011, WHICH WAS PRONOUNCED ON 29.12.2015 A ND SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION OF RS. 10,55,497/-, ITA T HAS DELETED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,59,225/- AND HAS CONFIRMED ONLY RS. 3,96,272/-. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS FOR THE PREPOSITION THAT THE PE NALTY WAS OTHERWISE ALSO NOT LEVIABLE CIT VS. SHAHBAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. 322 ITR 73 (P&H), CIT ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 4 OF 11 VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS P. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC ), KARAN RAGHAV EXPORTS P. LTD. VS. CIT 349 ITR 112 (DELHI HIGH COURT), CIT VS . J.K. SYNTHETICS LTD. 219 ITR 267 (DEL.), CIT VS. MATA PD. 278 ITR 354 (ALL), VIP INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT 21 DTR 153 (MUM.) AND KANBAY SOFTWARE INDIA P. LTD. VS. DC IT 31 SOT (PUNE). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED DESERVES TO B E CANCELLED. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IMPOSED SHOULD BE MODIFIED IN TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE Q UANTUM APPEAL. HE HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE SUSTAINED ON T HE QUANTUM WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AND HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STE EL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26, HAD LAID DOWN THE POSITION OF LAW BY HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND TO LEVY PENALTY AUTOMATICALLY SIMPLY BECA USE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. ALSO IN CASE OF CIT V. KHODAY ESWAR A (83 ITR 369) (SC), INCIDENTALLY REPORTED IN SAME ITR VOLUME, IT IS HEL D THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON BASIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS RECENTLY REITERATED THE LAW IN CA SE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V. JT. CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 BY HOLDING IN PARA 62 THAT FINDI NG IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 5 OF 11 CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED IN PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS AND THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH FROM DIFFERENT ANGLE. THE STATUTE REQUIRES A SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE IS REQUIRE D TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION SO AS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS PRIMARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE AMOUNT OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THIS ONUS IS TO BE DISCHARGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BEGIN WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS GUILTY. SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN PENALTY PROCEE DINGS VARIES FROM THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS INCOME CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED, THOUGH A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTES GOOD EVIDENCE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE AUTHORITIES MUST CONSIDER T HE MATTER AFRESH AS THE QUESTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DONT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FOR THIS PROPOSITION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. DHARAMCHAND L. SHAH (1993) 204 ITR 462 (BOM). IN VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD VS. ITO (2008)6 DTR 64 (DEL) IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTE GOO D EVIDENCE DO NOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS. DURING PENALTY ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 6 OF 11 PROCEEDINGS, THERE HAS TO BE REAPPRAISAL OF THE VER Y SAME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE AND IF FURTHER MATERIAL IS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT IS ALL TH E MORE NECESSARY THAT SUCH FURTHER MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED IN AN ATTEMPT TO A SCERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS. THUS, UNDER PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE CAN DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN BY RE LYING ON THE SAME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT IS MADE BY CONTENDING THAT ALL NECESSARY DISCLOSURES WERE MADE AND THAT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL DISCLOS ED THERE CANNOT BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER IF THERE IS ANY MATERIAL OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SAME CAN BE PRODUCED IN PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS AS BOTH ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE. IN CIT VS. M/S SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES (2009) 184 TAXMAN 460 (P & H) (HC) IT WAS HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE CANNOT BE READ AS LA YING DOWN THAT IN EVERY CASE WHERE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE INACCURATE, PENALTY MUST FOLLOW. EVEN SO, THE CONCEPT OF PENALTY HAS NOT UNDERGONE CHANGE BY VIRT UE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. PENALTY IS IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF DELIB ERATE DEFAULT. 6. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT MAY BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . [2010] 322 ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 7 OF 11 ITR 158/189 TAXMAN 322, WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT, WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT, HAS HELD THAT A GLANCE AT THE SAID PR OVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, TH ERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECO NDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE OF HIS INCOME. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, NOR WAS IT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON IN TEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE COU RT OBSERVED THAT IT HAD TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THAT CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT , THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE COURT NOTED THAT AS PER LAW LEXICO N, THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN THE PLURAL SENSE); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD ' PARTICULAR' USED IN SECTION 271(1)( C ) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE C LAIM MADE. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS: 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NO T ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT.' THE C OURT OBSERVED THAT READING THE WORDS 'INACCURATE' AND 'PARTICULARS' IN CONJUNCTION , THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. THE COURT NOTED THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 8 OF 11 INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT WAS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPPLIED WAS FO UND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT, PRIMA FACIE , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE COURT REPELL ED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRE CT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. THE COURT HELD THAT IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROV ISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM I N LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ) MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE CAN BE NO DIS PUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ON LY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 7. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE PENALTY ORDER IS WOEFULLY SILENT ON THE ISSUE AS TO HOW THIS SATISFACTION OF CONCEALMEN T/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WAS ARRIVED AT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALS O NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL BUT HAS SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY RELYING ON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS KIND OF FINDING MIGHT BE VERY RELEVANT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BUT WILL NOT SUFFICE IN PENALTY PROCEED INGS. WITH REGARD TO THE ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 9 OF 11 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT PERTAIN ING TO PENALTY, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS AUTHORITATIVELY LAID DOWN THAT MAKING OF A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC), THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN O RDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE PRESENT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM FO R THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULA R' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENSE); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271 (1) (C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLA IM MADE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT NO INFOR MATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT IS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPPLIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HENCE, AT LEAST, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESS EE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED C OUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPEN DITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SU CH INCOME.' WE DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH CAN BE THE INTERPRETATION OF TH E CONCERNED WORDS. ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 10 OF 11 THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAG INATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 8. ALTHOUGH BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS/CONCEALED INCOME, ON A CONSI DERATION ON THE FACTS, SUCH A VIEW IS NOT TENABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS AL SO NOTEWORTHY THAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 10,55 ,497/-, ITAT HAS DELETED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,59,225/- AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 3,9 6,272/- WAS CONFIRMED ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THESE TENANTS WERE NO T RECORDED. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE SET ASI DE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ENTIRE PENALTY. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/07/2016 SD/- SD/- (O.P. KANT) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29.07.2016 *KAVITA ARORA ITA NO. 2461/D/15 CHANDER PAL AGGARWAL PAGE 11 OF 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI