The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji., Panaji V. M/s Handsel Goa Pvt. Ltd., Goa

ITA 248/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1411 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 26-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMIR C ANVEKAR
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 : (A.YS 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANAJI, GOA. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. HANDSEL GOA PVT. LTD., AS - 2, ASTRAL GARDEN, NEAR EDEN WOODS, BEHIND TALEIGAO CHURCH, TALEIGAO, GOA (RESPONDENT) PAN : AABCH3127K ASSESSEE BY : PRAMOD VAIDYA, ADV. & SAMIR C. ANVEKAR, CA REVENUE BY : K.M. MAHESH, LD. DR DATE OF HEARING : 17/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/08/2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN : 1. ITA NO. 248/PNJ/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANAJI - 2 IN ITA NO. 77/CIT(A) - VI/BLORE/2013 - 14 AND ITA NO. 32/CIT(A)/PNJ - 2/2014 - 15 DT. 10.2.2015 FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08 AND ITA NO. 249/PNJ/2015 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), PANAJI - 2 IN ITA NO. 404/CIT(A) - VI/BLORE/2 013 - 14 AND ITA NO. 34/CIT(A)/PNJ - 2/2014 - 15 DT. 5.2.2015 FOR THE A.Y 2010 - 11 AGAINST CANCELLATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SHRI K.M. MAHESH, LD. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI PRAMOD VAIDYA, ADV OCATE & SHRI SAMIR C. ANV EKAR, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 2 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ITA NO. 248/PNJ/2015 : 2. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.40,28,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO BE MADE TO LAND OWNERS? 2. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF THE COMPENSATION AGREEMENT DATED 17.06.2006 WITHOUT GI VING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE AND REFUTE THE SAME? 3. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,75,00,000/ - MADE BY THE AO BEING THE SALE RECEIPTS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE? 4. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.75 CRORES WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX IN A.Y. 2007 - 08 BECAUSE THE SAME WAS WITHHELD AS PROVISION TO HANDLE COST OF LITIGA TION AND PROBABLE COMPENSATION? 5. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY IT IN NOT ADMITTING THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2.75 CRORES? 6. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THAT MAY BE AGITATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI MAY BE QUASHED AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 3. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION BY THE LD. DR THAT GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 40, 28,500/ - ON ACCOUNT OF THE PAYMENTS CLAIMED TO BE MADE TO THE LAND OWNERS BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COMPENSATION AGREEMENT DT. 17.6.2006 WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE OR REFUTE THE SAME. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DOING BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF 252 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM MORE THAN 100 OWNERS SCATTERED ALL OVER INDIA. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSES SMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 40,28,500/ - TO THREE PERSONS BEING SHRI UDAY D. PRABHU DESSAI, SHRI VASSUDEO R. DESHPRABHU AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR RAO. THE SAID PERSONS WERE NOT THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS. THE AO HAD QUESTIONED T HE SAME AND THE 3 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THE THREE PERSONS WHO ACTED AS CONSOLIDATORS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ALSO FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED OF THE OCCUPANTS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD HELD THAT THE EXPENDI TURE WAS NOT LAID OUT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE NOR HAD THE GENUINENESS BEEN PROVED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEMENT DT. 17.6.2006 WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS LIABLE TO BE REVERSED. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD RECOGNIZED THE AGREEMENT DT. 17.6 .2006 AND THAT THE ASSESSEE, M/S. HANDSEL GOA PVT. LTD. HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S. GOLD RESORTS & HOTELS PVT. LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE WAS TO ENSURE PEACEFUL PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY FREE FROM ALL ENCUMBRANCES AND TO ENSURE THAT THE PR OPERTY DOES NOT HAVE ANY TENANTS/CARETAKERS. IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THIS THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SAID THREE PERSONS. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ALL THESE EVIDENCES WERE BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) W AS LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUTSET, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MORE SPECIFICALLY PAGE 7, SHOWS THAT THE AO WAS WELL AWARE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DT. 17.6.2006. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF PAGE 18, PARA 4.4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT LOOKED INTO ANY FRESH EVIDENCES INSOFAR AS THE LD. CIT(A) CATEGORICALLY HELD AS FOLLOWS : THEREFORE, IT BECOMES IMPORTANT TO PERUSE THE DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS GIVE N BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. TO, MY UNDERSTANDING, THE SAME CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER : 4 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ADMITTEDLY, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS ONLY RE - APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCES AS WERE AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40,28,500/ - WAS A GENUINE TRANSACTION AND WAS EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FIND ING OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG NOR ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED WHICH CALLS FOR ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE SAID FINDING. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 STAND DISMISSED. 6. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ISSUE WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,75,00,000 / - MADE BY THE AO REPRESENTING THE SALE RECEIPTS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALES OF RS. 10,02, 93,282/ - IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OUT OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS . 17,37,37,000/ - AND THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED RS. 3,02,23,718/ - AS PURCHASED COST AND OTHER COSTS INCURRED FOR THE SALE OF THE LAND. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - WHICH HAD NOT BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THIS RELATED TO THE 252 ACRES OF LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S. GOLD RESORTS & HOTELS GOA PVT. LTD. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE AO HAD ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME BY HOLDING THAT THE SAME HAD BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BETWEEN THE A.YS 2008 - 09 AND 2011 - 12 AS THIS AMOUNT WAS KEPT TOWARDS LITIGATION EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTION AND THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS AND WHEN THE LITIGATIONS WERE BEING WITHDRAWN. 5 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) 7. IN REPLY, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BETWEEN THE A.YS 2008 - 09 AND 201 2 - 1 3 AND THE AO HAS ALSO TAXED THE SAME DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEARS WHEN THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION FOR THE A.Y 2007 - 08 IS, IN FACT, A DOUBLE ADDITION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MORE SPECIFICALLY PAGE 11, CLEARLY S HOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE AO AND THE AO IN PAGE 12 HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE A.YS 2008 - 09 TO 201 2 - 1 3 . HOWEVER, ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTI RE RECEIPTS SHOULD BE SHOWN DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 SINCE THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED WAS COMPLETED IN THE A.Y 2007 - 08 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS A FACILITATOR AND CONFIRMING PARTY, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IS TAXABLE IN THE A.Y 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC REASON AS TO WHY HE HAS STAGGERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,75,00,000/ - BETWEEN THE A.YS 2008 - 09 TO 201 2 - 1 3 . IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE TRANSACTION WHICH IS FOUNDED ON THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING DT. 17.6.2006 GETS COM PLETED ONLY WHEN THE TRANSACTION THEREIN IS COMPLETED IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ALL LITIGATIONS ARE ALSO CLOSED. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING IS PEACEFUL POSSESSION. THE ASSESSEE, JUST BECAUSE THE REGISTRATION WAS COMPLETE, CANNOT W ASH HIS HANDS OFF FROM THE TRANSACTION WHEN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ITSELF SPECIFIES PEACEFUL POSSESSION. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THIS AMOUNT IN A STAGGERED MANNER AS AND WHEN THE LITIGATIONS WERE WITHDR AWN BETWEEN THE A.YS 2008 - 09 AND 2012 - 13. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.YS 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 13 STANDS COMPLETED AND CLOSED. THE INCOME OFFERED IN THOSE YEARS HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED. IN FACT, THIS ADDITION DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOTHING BUT A D OUBLE ADDITION; 6 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ONE WHEN THE SAME INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE A.YS 2008 - 09 TO 2012 - 13 AND ANOTHER IN THE FORM OF ADDITION DURING THIS YEAR. SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IS ON A RIGHT FOOTING AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 249/PNJ/2015 : 10. IN THE REVENUES APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.4,31,67,000/ - LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C)? 2. THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A REVISED RETURN ADMITTING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ONLY AFTER A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM THE DIRECTOR UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT? 3. THE LD. CIT(A ) - 2, PANAJI HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER? 4. FOR THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND ANY ADDITIONAL GROUNDS THAT MAY BE AGITATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 2, PANAJI MAY BE QUASHED AND THAT OF THE AO RESTORED. 11. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT THIS APPEAL WAS AGAINST THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. IT WAS FAIRLY AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO T HE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S. PARABOLA LAND MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. , M/S. PARABOLA LAND & HOLDING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. GOA ORGANICS PVT. LTD. IN 7 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) ITA NOS . 183/PNJ/2015, 184/PNJ/2015 AND 185/PNJ/2015 RESPECTIVELY, ALL DT. 6.8.2015. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2010 - 11. THE RETURNED INCOME WAS RS. 12,73,20,517/ - AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS ALSO RS. 12,73,20,517/ - . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S. PARABOLA LAND MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. , M/S. PARABOLA LAND & HOLD ING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. GOA ORGANICS PVT. LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA WOULD APPLY TO THIS CASE ALSO. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S. PARABOLA LAND MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. , M/S. PARABOLA LAND & HOLDING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. GOA ORGANICS PVT. LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA WHEREIN WE HAVE ALREADY HELD AS FOLLOWS : 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITTEDLY, THE RETURNED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. A PERUSAL OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(C) SHOWS THAT IT IS ONLY IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEES START WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEES. THE SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED ON A THIRD PARTY. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PRESENT ASSESSEES CASES WOULD INITIATE WHEN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FILED. ANY ACT DONE BY THE ASSESSEES BEFORE FILING SUCH RETURNS BUT IN RELATION TO THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDERS WOULD NOT LEAD TO CONSEQUENCE OF MENS REA OR EVEN AN ACT OF CONCEALMENT OR AN ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS CLEARLY SHOW THAT A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FROM ONE SHRI HEMANT SHARMA WHO HAS REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE - COMPANIES FOR HAVING DONE CERTAIN MONEY LAUNDERING ACTS OR BOGUS SHARE APPLICATION MONEY ACTS. THE SAID SHRI HEMANT SHARMA HAS NOT BEEN PUT TO ANY OF THE ASSESSEES FOR CROS - EXAMINATION. EVEN ACCEPTING THAT WHAT IS SAID BY SHRI HEMANT SHARMA IS CORRECT AND THE ASSESSEES HAVE OBTAINED BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL THROUGH SHRI HEMANT SHARMA, STILL THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE ES DID NOT PROCEED WITH SUCH FRAUDULENT ACTIVITIES OR CULMINATED IN THE FILING OF THEIR RETURN SUPPRESSING 8 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) SUCH BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL ONLY GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES. IN FACT, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN REPORTED IN 120 ITR 1 HA S HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF A PENALTY, HOWEVER, WE MUST REMEMBER THAT A PENALTY IS IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE COMMISSION OF A WRONGFUL ACT, AND PLAINLY IT IS THE LAW OPERATING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE WRONGFUL ACT IS COMMITTED WHICH DETERMINES THE PENALTY. HERE, THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT COMMITTED A WRONGFUL ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING ALL THEIR INCOME MUCH BEFORE ANY ACTION OR PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN EVEN CONTEMPLATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE BASIC PRE - CONDITION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS ON A CORRECT FOOTING AND THE CANCELLATION OF THE PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A) STANDS UPHELD. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO - OR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. PARABOLA LAND MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD. , M/S. PARABOLA LAND & HOLDING PVT. LTD. AND M/S. GOA ORGANICS PVT. LTD. REFERRED TO SUPRA THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT STANDS CONFIRMED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/08/2015. S D / - (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S D / - ( GEORGE MATHAN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 17/08/ 201 5 *SSL* 9 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A) CONCERNED (4) CIT CONCERNED (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER , 10 ITA NOS. 248 & 249/PNJ/2015 (A.YS : 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11) DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ORDER ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 17/08/2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 1 8 /08/2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 18/08/2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 18/08/2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 18/08/2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/08/2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 18/08/2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER