Anilkumar Babulal Katariya, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 254/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 25424514 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNITHA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Reasonable cause
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.252 TO 256/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2006-07 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA C/O K.D. BHANDARI, B-3, ANAND PARK, SARASNAGAR ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR 414001 . APPELLANT PAN: ACTPK5425G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR . RESPONDENT ITA NOS.257 TO 262/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2006-07 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA C/O K.D. BHANDARI, B-3, ANAND PARK, SARASNAGAR ROAD, AHMEDNAGAR 414001 . APPELLANT PAN: ACTPK5425G VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SUNITHA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 21-01-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-01-2015 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST T WO SEPARATE CONSOLIDATED ORDERS OF CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE, DATED 05.12.2013 AND 02.12.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07 PASSED UNDER SECTIONS 271(1)(C) AND 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961, RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 2 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH REGD. POST WITH ACK. DUE AND TH E ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE OF NOTICE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 3. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. THE FIRST BUNCH OF APPEALS IN ITA NOS.252 TO 256/PN/20 14 ARE AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED IN ALL THE AP PEALS AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.252/PN/2014, READS AS UNDER:- 1. PENALTY LEVIED MAY PLEASE BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THE PROPER HEARING OF OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE HA D FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.12.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .65,480/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.15,490/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS.14,80,000/- T O VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE SUITS FOR RECOVERY O F THE AMOUNT ADVANCED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PERSONS, WHO HAD NOT RE PAID THE SAID AMOUNTS. ON GOING THROUGH THE COURT DOCUMENTS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED THE SA ID LOANS TO VARIOUS PERSONS ON VARIOUS DATES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH SOURCE O F THE SAID ADVANCES GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS DURING THE YEAR. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS DOING THE SAID BUSINESS FOR T HE LAST 20 YEARS AND WHATEVER WAS EARNED FROM THE SAID BUSINESS FOR SEVE RAL YEARS, HAD ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 3 BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE SAID ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, WAS U NABLE TO PRODUCE PROPER EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SOURCES OF ADVANC ES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD STATED THAT HIS BUSINESS WAS TERMED AS ILLEGAL BY THE COURT OF LAW. THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION FROM THE LIST OF DEBTORS, NOTED THAT SU M OF RS.14,80,000/- WAS GIVEN AS ADVANCES DURING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002- 03 WHICH WAS TREATED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT IN THE SO- CALLED MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. SIMULTANEOUSLY, PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. THE ASSE SSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDERS OF ASSESSMENT. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER LETTER DATED 05.0 5.2010 IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO AT TEND AND SUBMIT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 17.05.2010. THE LETTER WAS DULY SE RVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 06.05.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOURNMENT A PPLICATION ON 17.05.2010. THE PROCEEDINGS WERE FIXED ON 18.06.2010. HOW EVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY NOR WRITTEN EXPLAN ATION WAS FILED. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED IN-ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE ASS ESSEE HAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SO-CALLED MONEY LENDING BUSINE SS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,13,080/- AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED AT RS.40,471/- ON THE ASSESSED INCOME. 8. THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A) WERE FIXED ON VA RIOUS DATES FOR WHICH, NOTICES OF HEARING WERE ISSUED THROUGH REGD. PO ST WITH ACK. DUE AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF SERVICE WERE ON RECORD . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ONE LETTER REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT ON 04.09.2 013. THEREAFTER, THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE FIXED ON 08.11.2 013 AND ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 4 27.11.2013. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED IN RESPONSE TO THE T WO NOTICES ISSUED THEREAFTER. THE CIT(A) THUS, PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE AP PEAL ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CIT(A) TOOK NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE PERUSAL OF THE COURT DO CUMENTS FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS ON VARIOUS DATES IN FIV E ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THESE ADVANCES WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE IN RETURNS OF INCOME AND THE SAME WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT FROM MONEY LENDING BUSINESS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT (A) UNDER PARA 2.1 HAS TABULATED YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF RETURNED INCOME, ASS ESSED INCOME AND THE AMOUNT ADVANCED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE INVESTME NT IN MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE H AD NO EXPLANATION FOR NOT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE FROM WHICH MONEY WAS ADVANCED BY HIM, HENCE, IT WAS HELD TO BE A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS CONFIRMED. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A). 10. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AP PEAR BEFORE US ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MOVED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WAS ALSO OF NON-COMPLIANCE TO VARIOUS NO TICES ISSUED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEALS EX-PARTE THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. 11. ON THE PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS WE RE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07 ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ALLE GED CUSTOMERS IN ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 5 HIS BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING. THE YEAR-WISE DETAILS OF AMOU NT ADVANCED WERE AS UNDER:- AY AMOUNT ADVANCED 2002-03 14,80,000 2003-04 16,04,000 2004-05 13,37,000 2005-06 16,46,000 2006-07 15,57,500 12. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FROM THE COURT PROCEEDINGS IN RECOVERY SUITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE ABOVE SAID ADVA NCES FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS IN THE SAID BUSINESS FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS AND HE GAVE THE CUSTOME RS THE SAID AMOUNT AS LOAN AND HAD TAKEN CHEQUES FROM THEM, WHICH W ERE PAID TO THE SUPPLIERS. THE SAID CUSTOMERS EVEN AFTER REPEATED D EMANDS, DID NOT PAY THE SAME AND FINALLY, SUITS WERE FILED FOR RECOVERY OF TH E SAID AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME FROM HIS MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY AND / OR HIS INVESTMENT IN THE SAID ACTIVITY . THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH EVIDENCE THE SA ID PLEA OF HIS HAVING ADVANCED THE MONEY OUT OF HIS MONEY LENDING BUSIN ESS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SA ID INVESTMENT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEA RS AND THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE MADE AS UNDER:- SR NO AY RETURNED INCOME (RS) ASSESSED INCOME (RS) AMOUNT ADVANCED 01 2002-03 65,480 2,13,080 14,80,000 02 2003-04 62,180 2,48,880 16,04,000 03 2004-05 69,230 2,23,030 13,37,000 04 2005-06 1,04,370 2,72,970 16,46,000 05 2006-07 1,29,320 3,23,120 15,57,500 13. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED T O DISCLOSE HIS INVESTMENT IN THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS IN THE RETURNS O F INCOME AND ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 6 HAVING FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE THEREOF, IS A CASE OF CON CEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF MONEY WHICH WAS ADVANCED BY HIM TO THE A LLEGED CUSTOMERS HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE, ESTABLISHES THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 14. PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED WHERE THE PERSON EITHER CONCEALS THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR FUR NISHES IN- ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EITHER OF THE TWO CONDITION S ARE TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED NO EXPLANATION / SOURCE OF MAKING ADVANCES TO DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS AGAINST WHOM HE HAD FILED SUITS FOR RECO VERY IN THE CIVIL COURT, IS A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT RS.40,471/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 15. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 3-04 TO 2006-07 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND APPLYING THE SAME LINE OF REASONING, WE UPHOLD THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.50,794/-, RS.39,821/-, RS.56,251/- AND RS.53,994 /- IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-0 7, RESPECTIVELY. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 16. IN THE SECOND BUNCH OF APPEALS I.E. ITA NOS.257 TO 261 /PN/2014, THE ISSUE RAISED IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC TION 271A OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 7 17. AS MENTIONED IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCES TO THE VARIOUS PERSONS. THIS FACT WA S NOTED FROM THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST D IFFERENT PERSONS, WHO HAD NOT REPAID THE SAID ADVANCES. THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT DISCLOSED THE SAID ADVANCES IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY WAS THAT, HE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF SELLING LOTTERY TICKETS AND OUT OF THE MONEY EARNED FROM SAID BUSINESS, H E HAD MADE THE SAID ADVANCES. WHEN THE ADVANCES WERE NOT PAID, THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANA TION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WAS COMPUTING THE INCOME ON CASH BASIS. WHILE FILING THE RETURNS OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING THAT IT WAS ON CASH SYSTEM, B UT HE HAD NOT DRAWN ANY BALANCE SHEET. IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF AC COUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS SHO ULD NOT BE LEVIED. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE ON VARIOUS DATES, THE AS SESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE TO BE IN DEFAULT IN NON-MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT, WHER E IT WAS MANDATORY TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF THE ANNUAL INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS EXCEEDED RS.1,20,000/- OR THE GROSS RECEIPT S OF TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS.10 LAKHS IN ANY OF THE THREE YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.2,13,080/- AND AS SUCH, HE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT AND AS PER RULE 6F OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE A SSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 8 8. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE PROPER BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AS MENTIONED IN RULE 6F OF THE IT RULES, 1962. THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT ATTENDED NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN EXPLANATION IN RES PONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS O BSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANCES OF RS.14,80,000/- TO V ARIOUS PERSONS. RESPONDING THE NOTICES, ASSESSEE EXPLAINED T HAT HE WAS DOING BUSINESS OF SELLING LOTTERY TICKETS. IN LOTTERY BUSINESS NET PROFIT IS GENERALLY 2% TO 5%, AND AS ADVANCES OF RS.16,80,000/- WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT IT MEANS THAT ANNUAL INCOME FRO M THE LOTTERY BUSINESS EXCEEDS RS.1 ; 20,000/- OR THE GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER EXCEEDS RS.10,00,000/- IN VIEW OF ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES I HAVE REASON TO BEL IEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED THE DEFAULT IN TERMS OF SE C.271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. I, THEREFORE, LEVY A PENALTY OF RS .25,000/- U/S.271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT AT RS. 25,000/- RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 19. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED VARIOUS AMOUNTS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS TO ITS CUSTOMERS, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEES GROSS RECEIPTS OR TURNOVER PRESUMABLY EXCEEDED RS.10 LAKHS IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT ITS TURNOVER WAS LESS THAN RS .10 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NT FOR HIS BUSINESS UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR TH E RESPECTIVE YEARS, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT AT RS.25,000 /- FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WAS UPHELD. 20. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FO UND TO HAVE ADVANCED SUM OF RS.14,80,000/-, RS.16,04,000/-, RS.13,37,000/ -, RS.16,46,000/- AND RS.15,57,500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 02-03, ITA NOS.252 TO 262/PN/2014 SHRI ANILKUMAR BABULAL KATARIYA 9 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. TH E ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT IT WAS IN MONEY LENDING BUSINESS, BUT HAD FAILED TO MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. UNDER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT AND RULE 6F OF THE RULES, WHERE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EXCEEDS MORE THAN RS.1,20,000/- OR THE TOTAL GROSS RECE IPTS EXCEEDS MORE THAN RS.10 LAKHS, THEN IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASS ESSEE TO MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE WAS EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 1A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING TH E LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.25,000/- IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2006-07, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 21. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . THE ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT A T THE CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 21 ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2015, IN THE PRESENCE OF LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 21 ST JANUARY, 2015. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-IT/TP, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE