Navneet Memorial Hospital, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer,Ward-9(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 2691/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7889 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M PATEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Difference of opinion; Onus to prove
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, *,* *,**,* *,* IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2691/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, SUSHRUSHA OPP: TELEPHONE EXCHANGE NR. SARDAR PATEL SAMAJ NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), AHMEDABAD ! PAN/GIR NO. : AACFN 4811 E ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' RESPONDENT ) '$ APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. M. PATEL, A.R. #'%$ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAYANT JHAVERI, SR. D.R & ' (%) * / DATE OF HEARING 27/11/2017 +,-. %) * / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/12/2017 / O R D E R PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD, VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XV/WD.9(3)/14/12-13 DATED 13/06/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2003-04, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THOUGH LD. A.O. NEITHER PROVED CONCEALMENT NOR F OUND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO CON FIRM THE PENALTY OF RS.1,30,000/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT. ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 2 - 2. WHILE CALCULATING THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY., THE LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF HONORABLE TRIBUNAL IN QUANTU M APPEAL. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,30,000/- WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMOUNT OF RECEIP TS SHOWN IN CASE PAPER AND RECEIPT SHOWN IN 3C REGISTER WHICH I S ONLY RS.23,900/- OUT OF WHICH RS.15,100/- DULY EXPLAINED 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/11/2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,70,425/-. IN THIS CASE AN ACTION U/S.133A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 25/10/2002 AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINI NG ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PROPERLY AND THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2002-03 WAS RE OPENED AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2003-04 WAS ALSO REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT AND NOTICE U/S.148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29/11/2003 MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I. T. ACT. THER EAFTER, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASS ESSMENT WAS COMPLETED COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.12,41,850/- VIDE ORDER U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 DATED 26/12/2008 AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.6,99,335/- ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AND A NOTICE U/S .274 R.W.S. 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 26/12/2008 FOR CONCEALMENT/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN AP PEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AND THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE A.O. ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 3 - ON ACCOUNT OF LOW NET PROFIT AT RS.2,56,510/- AS AG AINST RS. 6,99,335/- MADE BY THE A.O. THEREAFTER, A FRESH OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 27/02/2012 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ITS EXPLANATION IF ANY, FOR LEVY OF PENA LTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN RESPONSE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HI S LETTER DATED 02/03/2010 FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. THAT IN THE HUMBLE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN TIME AND AGAIN HELD THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NTS THAT WHERE A CLAIM IS MADE OR AN EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SOME BONAFIDE BELIEF AND THE SAME IS S UPPORTED BY COGENT EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCE, IT IS OPEN TO THE TAXING AUTHORITIES TO REJECT THE SAME, BUT THE SAME WOULD NOT, PER SE, ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM DOES NOT, PER SE TANTAMOU NT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTED WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION. A MERE REJECTION O F THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION O R ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS REGARDS THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPENSE OR CLAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ADMISSION OR REJECTION OF A CLAIM IS A SUBJECTI VE EXERCISE AND WHETHER A CLAIM IS ACCEPTED OR REJECTED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MER ELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE OR EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN DISALLOWED OR CONFIRMED EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF COMPLETE PROOF OR DI VERGENCE OF OPINION AS REGARDS ITS ALLOWABILITY, FROM THAT CIRCUMSTANCE ALONE, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALE D THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE, PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 4 - THE PENALTY PROCEEDING BEING QUASI CRIMINAL IN NATU RE, THE ENTIRETY OF CIRCUMSTANCES MUST REASONABLY POINT, TO THE CONCLUS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF, INCOME OR HAS DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THE BURDEN TO PROVE IN PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER THE I.T. ACT IS N OT OF THE SAME NATURE WHICH RESTS ON THE PROSECUTION IN A CRIMINAL CASE. IT IS A BURDEN AKIN TO THAT IN A CIVIL 'SUIT, WHERE DETERMINATION IS MADE ON THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. IT IS THEREFORE, NOT NECESSARY FO R THE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN, TO PROVE HIS POINT TO THE HILT. 3. IN A VERY RECENT DECISION OF C1T V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. [2010] 322 1TR 158(SC) , IT HAS BEEN DISTINCTLY HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CAN NOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING INCORRECT CLAIM T ANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS 'MERELY BECAUSE AN EXPENSE OR EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISALLOW ED ON ACCOUNT OF DIVERGENCE OF OPINION AS REGARDS ITS ALLOWABILITY, FROM THAT CIRCUMSTANCE ALONE, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IT IS DISTINCTLY HELD THAT MRE MAKING OF A CLAIM WH ICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FUR NISHING INACCURATE REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN, CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS THE CASE OF THE RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (32 2 1TR 158) IS, THUS FULLY AND SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE.' BEFORE DISCUSSING THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IT IS W ORTHWHILE TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE WHICH LEAD TO ADDITION OF RS.99,335/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW NET PROFIT. AS STATED ABOVE, AN ACTION U/S.133A OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED ON IN CASE OF THE ASSESSES. DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSES WAS NOT ACCOUNTING RECEIPTS IN FULL IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO FOUND THAT IT IS ALSO MAINTAINING THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 5 - AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE ORDER AS SESSMENT FOR A. Y. 2002-2003. AS STATED ABOVE, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION, THE A SSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2003-04 WAS ALSO REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE I.T. A CT, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTICED THAT THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOO LOW. AS SUCH, DETA ILS WERE CALLED FOR WHICH INCLUDED DAILY-CASE REGISTER, CASH AND BANK BOOK ETC. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE REGISTER PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN FORM NO.3C, THE A.O. NOTICED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WHICH ARE ILLUSTRATED IN PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SL. NO. NAME OF THE PATIENT DATE OF DISCHARGE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS PER CASE PAPER(RS.) AMOUNT SHOWN IN 3C REGISTER (RS.) 1. ISMAIL VORA 16/10/2002 2825 NIL 2. ISMAIL VORA 25/10/2002 1175 NIL 3. TAPU N. PARMAR 27/11/2002 2800 NIL 4. SATISHBHAI 26/11/2002 1600 NIL 5. VIMAL T. KHANNA 26/11/2002 400 NIL 6. NATWARBHAI PATEL 19/10/2002 3100 2600 7. CHANNABEN GOHEL 27/10/2002 1375 1275 8. KUSUMBEN 01/11/2002 800 600 9. KAILASHBEN SONI 08/12/2002 2900 2600 10. RAMESH M. RAWAT 28/11/2002 60000 48000 11. HARIBHAI I BHATT 25/11/2002 10300 83 THE A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODU CE PATIENTS CASE PAPERS ONLY UPTO DECEMBER-2002. IN VIEW OF THE DEFE CT NOTICED, THE A.O. REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT 6.1 % AS HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING YEAR. FROM THE DETAILS PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AS ILLUST RATED ABOVE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE CORRE CT RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM THE PATIENTS AND IN SOME CASES ONLY PART OF SU CH RECEIPTS ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SOME CASE S, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL ACCOUNTED THE RECEIPTS. IT IS, THEREFORE , VERY CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS FOR THE FAILURE ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 6 - TO ACCOUNT FOR THE RECEIPTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE DETAILS REPRODUCED ABOVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME BY NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THE FEES RECEIVED FROM THE PATIENTS. IT IS, THEREFORE, VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CONCEALING THE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME AND AS SUCH, IT IS A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271( 1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, I T CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SAME ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TIME AND AGAIN HELD THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NTS THAT WHERE A CLAIM IS MADE OR AN EXPENSE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SOME BONAFIDE BELIEF AND THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY COGENT EXPLANATIONS AND EVIDENCES, IT IS OPEN TO THE TAXIN G AUTHORITIES TO REJECT THE SAME, BUT THE SAME WOULD NOT, PER SE, ESTABLISH THE GUILT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THIS RESPECT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PE NALTY WAS INITIATED NOT ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE BUT PENALTY WAS INITIATED ON THE ESTIMATION OF THE PROFIT MADE BY THE A.O. AS STATED ABOVE, IT WAS PROVED BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT CORRECTLY RECORDED THE RECEIPTS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT I S ALSO A FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED WITH A NOTICE U/S.14 8 OF THE I.T. ACT IT CONTINUED TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME WHICH HAS ALREADY SHOWN WITHOUT MAKING ANY AMENDMENTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED . THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS PARTICULA RS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT RE CORDING THE CORRECT RECEIPT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT PRODUCING THE PART OF THE DOCUMENTS FOR VER IFICATION BY THE A.O. IT IS, THEREFORE, OBVIOUS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED ITS TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THUS EXPOSED TO THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C)OF THE I.T. ACT. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF C1T VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 322 1TR 158 [20 10] [SC] IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CA SE. IN THAT CASE THE A.O. DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE U/S. 14A OF THE I. T. ACT ON WHICH THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE THE ISSUE IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE EITHER NOT ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 7 - RECORDING THE RECEIPTS OR PARTIALLY RECORDING THE R ECEIPTS. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL ITS TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO F AILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR NOT RECORDING CERTAIN RECEIPTS AS P OINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. HAD THE SURVEY ACTION U/S.133 NOT BEEN CONDUCTED ON ASSESSEE THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND ON RELIAB ILITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE DEDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS IS A FIT C ASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(L)(C). I, THEREFORE, LEVY A PENALTY OF RS. 1,30,000/- AS AGAINST MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE OF RS. 2,85,009/-. THIS ORDER IS PASSED WITH THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF THE JT.C.I.T., RANGE- 9, AHMEDABAD VIDE LETTER NO.JT.CIT./RANGE.9/PEN.APP ROVAL/2011-12 DATED 12/03/2012. THE WORKING OF THE PENALTY IS GIVEN BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. A) ASSESSED INCOME 5,71,300/- B) TAX ON ASSESSED INCOME 209953/- C) CONCEALED INCOME 258510/- D) ASSESSED INCOME LESS CONCEALED INCOME 312790/- E) TAX ON D: 114950/- F) TAX SOUGH TO BE EVADED: 95003/- G) MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE 95003/- (100%) H) MAXIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE 285009/- (300%) I) PENALTY LEVIED 1,30,000/-. 3. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM RUN SUSHRUSHA HOSPIT AL. IN THIS YEAR THE RETURN WAS FILED SHOWING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2,70,42 5/-. THE AO ON MEAGER DISCREPANCIES REJECTED AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND ESTIMATED ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 8 - NET PROFIT @ 6.1%. BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE SAID ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) REDUCED NET PROFIT @ 3%, FURTHER, APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT, WHICH ALSO R EDUCED ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 2% OF TURNOVER. WHILE PASSING THE ORDE R OF THE PENALTY, LD. AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE ITA T. THEREAFTER, CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE RELIEF GRANTED B Y THE ITAT. EVEN THOUGH PASSED APPEAL ORDER AFTER DECIDING QUANTUM A PPEAL BY ITAT. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLE THAT IF THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. NO PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED WHILE TOTAL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT. IN THE P RESENT CASE ESTIMATED INCOME HAS BEEN DECIDED DIFFERENTLY AT DIFFERENT LE VELS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN SUCH CASE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. 5. IN THE RESULT, PENALTY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AN D APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27/12/2017 SD/- SD/- IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ IZEKSN DQEKJ EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LNL; L; L; L; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; (PRAMOD KUMAR) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/12/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.2691/AHD /2014 NAVNEET MEMORIAL HOSPITAL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2003-04 - 9 - !'# $#! COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 012) & 3) / CONCERNED CIT 4. & 3) 45 / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD. 5. 67 8)'12 *12. 0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8 9: ( GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, # 6)) //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 21/12/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 4 PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26/12/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER