Sh. Roshan Lal Tilak Raj & Co., Distt. Kapurthala V. The Income Tax Officer, Distt. Kapurthala

ITA 28/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8895 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Initiation of penalty proceedings

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO.28(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 SH. ROSHAN LAL TILAK RAJ & CO. MANDI NADALA DIST:- KAPURTHALA. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II, DISTRICT:- KAPURTHALA. PAN:AAGFR3700G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARUN BANSAL ( ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K.SHARDA (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 22.12. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.01.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 06.11.2013, FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER TAKEN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEA L. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 27.08.2014, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HOWEVER BY LETTER DATED 21.12.2015 THE ASSE SSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND HAS REQUESTED THAT AMENDED GROUNDS FILED ON 5.10.2015 MAY BE ALLOWED TO BE TAK EN UP. THE AMENDED GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 2 THAT THE PENALTY ORDER OF AO U/S 271(1) (C ) OF T HE ACT 1961, IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AB-INITIO, IN AS MUCH AS, THE REAS ONS FOR THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. 2. THAT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN QUANTUM O F APPEAL ARE NOT BINDING IN PENALTY APPEAL. AS IN PENALTY BONAFIDES OF ASSES SEES CONDUCT IS TO BE VERIFIED AND NOT THE TAXABILITY. 3. THAT THE LD. AO AND CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY IN DEPENDENT FINDING IN ORDER U/S 271 (1) (C), OF THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A DELIBERATE DESIGN ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE. 4. THAT LD. AO AND CIT(A) WRONGLY IGNORED, WHILE I MPOSING THE PENALTY THAT ALL THE ENTRIES OF ANNEXURE-I, ANNEXURE-II AND ANNEXURE-III, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION IN QUANTUM ASSESSMENT WAS C ONFIRMED ARE APPEARING IN THE STATUTORY RECORDS I.E., GADDA BAHI , WEEKLY-RETURNS IN FORM-M, LEDGER, FORM-I, AND FORM-J RESPECTIVELY AND ACCEPTED BY CIT(A) IN QUANTUM APPEAL AND SHOWS BONAFIDES OF THE APPELLANT S CONDUCT. 5. THAT THE LD. AO MADE MANY MISTAKES IN CALCULATIN G ADDITIONS OF ANNEXURE-I AND IN ANNEXURE-II ESTIMATED THE BAG SIZ E=50 KG PLUS MADE OTHER MISTAKES AND IN ANNEXURE-II HE CALCULATED TOT AL EMPTY BAGS = 37367, WHEREAS ACTUAL WERE=25350, HENCE ALL RESULTS INTO E STIMATION FOR LEVYING PENALTY. 6. THAT THE LD. AO AND LD. CIT(A) WRONGLY IGNORED T HE FACT THAT SALE OF RS.47,02,314/- TO ARORA RICE & GENERAL MILLS IS DON E BY OTHER PARTIES & TALLIES WITH EACH OTHER AND ALSO WRONGLY IMPOSED TH E PENALTY ON PURCHASE COST + PROFIT= SALE VALUE AND GAVE NO TELESCOPIC BE NEFIT OF PURCHASE COST, HENCE IMPOSING OF PENALTY IS BAD IN LAW. 7. THAT ORDER OF LD. AO & LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, AS WELL AS, ON FACTS. 8. THAT APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 9. THAT THE ORDER MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED OR ANOTHER CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF BE ALLOWED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1, HAS CHALLENGED T HE PENALTY ORDER ITSELF ON THE BASIS THAT REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE DIFFERENT FROM THE REASONS RECORDED IN PENALTY ORDE R. INVITING OUR ATTENTION TO REASONS FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS THE LEARNED AR TOOK US TO COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 23 ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 3 OF THE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER H AD RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR ISSUING PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1) (C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS IN THE PEN ALTY ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN THIS RESPECT HE INVITE D OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 3 OF PENALTY ORDER DATED 11.5.2009. THEREFORE, HE A RGUED THAT PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS VOID AB INITIO AS ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED DIFFERENT SATISFACTION IN ASSESSMENT O RDER AND IN PENALTY ORDER. 3. THE LEARNED AR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) WH ILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1) (C) HAS CONFIRMED PENALTY ON CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND IGNORED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION IN QUANTUM ORDER FOR FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN THIS RESPECT HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) AS PLACED IN PAPER BOOK PAGE 197 AND IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT IF THE AO INITIATED PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THE AO HAS TO LEV Y PENALTY ONLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND NOT FOR FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS TO LEVY THE PENALT Y FOR WHICH HE HAD INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS AR GUMENTS THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF T. ASHOK PAI VS. CIT 292 ITR 11 WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 4 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SATE CLEARLY AS TO FOR WHI CH HE IS INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW K.M. BHATIA (QUARRY) VS. CIT 193 ITR 379 (GUJ). THE LEARNED AR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. 1.CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 (KARN.) 2. CIT VS. MANU ENGG. WORKS122 ITR 306 (GUJ.) 3. NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. VS. CIT 282 ITR 642 (GUJ.) 4. JYESH R KUMARI VS. ITO (ITAT, ASR IN ITA 453 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS OF VARIOUS COURTS, T HE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF PENALTY ITSELF IS VOID AB-INITIO . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL ISSUE QUESTIONING THE P ENALTY ORDER ITSELF, THEREFORE, IT WAS DECIDED TO FIRST ADJUDICATE GROUN D NO.1 ONLY AND THEREFORE, THE LEARNED DR WAS DIRECTED TO REPLY TO THE ARGUMENTS OF LEARNED AR. 4. THE LEARNED DR, IN RESPONSE SUBMITTED THAT FUR NISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME THING AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME ITSELF AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HOROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE PENALTY ORDER ITSELF THEREFORE, WE ARE ADJUDICATING ON THIS ISSUE ONLY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THE FINDINGS ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 5 RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER F OR INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND IN PENALTY ORDER IN IMPOSIN G THE PENALTY. THE AO HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION IN ASSES SMENT ORDER. PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1) (C) HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE F OR UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND SALE OF BARDANA, EMPTY GUNNY BAGS AND SUTLI, PADDY SOLD TO M/S ARORA RICE & GENERAL MILLS, V. IBRAHIMWAL OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER GATE PASSES FOUND IN THE COURSE OF S URVEY U/S 133A, DISALLOWANCE OUT OF INTEREST ACCOUNT, ADDITION MADE FOR UNDISTRIBUTED DRY RELIEF BONUS AND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENDITURE MA DE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AS DISCUSSED A BOVE. 6. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PE NALTY ORDER HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION. I AM, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS C ONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,41,931/- AND IT IS A FIT CASE OF IMPOSING OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY OF RS.7,32,655/- IS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESS EE, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM PROVIDED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FROM THE ABOVE TWO SATISFACTIONS RECORDED BY ASSESS ING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN PENALTY ORDER WE FIND THAT PENALTY WAS INITIATED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND SALES AND ON ACCOUNT OF D ISALLOWANCES WHEREAS THE SATISFACTION RECORDED IN PENALTY ORDER REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTE NT OF RS.20,41,931/-. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE THE TWO LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECTION ITSELF WH EREIN THE TWO LIMBS ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 6 HAS BEEN DIFFERENTIATED BY THE USE OF WORD OR,. F OR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AR E REPRODUCED BELOW. 271. (1) IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE [***][C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] OF THE [PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR] COMMISSIONER] IN TH E COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY P ERSON- (A) [***] (B) [***] (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR [***] FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF [SUCH INCOME, OR] [(D) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE FRINGE BE NEFITS OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH FRINGE BENEFITS, THE LEARNED AR HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE PENALTY BY SPECIFICALLY .....OUT THE VIOLATION OF A SPECIFIC LIMB WHICH IMPLIES THAT WHERE PENALTY IS INITIATED ON ONE LIMB OF SECTION THE ORDER OF PENAL TY CANNOT BE PASSED ON ANOTHER LIMB OF SECTION. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 I TR 565 VIDE PARA 61 HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED UNDER THE ACT T O INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONCE HE IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF A NY PROCEEDINGS THAT THERE IS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER CLAUSE (C). CONCEALMENT, FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE DIFFERENT. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER W HILE ISSUING NOTICE HAS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHETHER IS IT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR IS IT A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK PAI REPORTED IN [2007] 2 92 ITR 11(SC) AT PAGE 19 HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING WORKS REPORTED IN [ 1980] 122 ITR 306 (GUJ) AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V . VIRGO MARKETING P. LTD. REPORTED IN [2008] 171 TAXMAN 156, HAS HELD THAT LE VY OF PENALTY HAS TO ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 7 BE CLEAR AS TO THE LIMB FOR WHICH IT IS LEVIED AND THE POSITION BEING UNCLEAR PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSES TO INVOKE THE FIRST LIMB BEING CONCEALMENT, THEN TH E NOTICE HAS TO BE APPROPRIATELY MARKED. SIMILAR IS THE CASE FOR FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOU T STRIKING OF THE RELEVANT CLAUSES WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS TO NO N-APPLICATION OF MIND. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAYESH R. KUMARI VS. ITO, IN ITA NO.453, UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND CONSI DERED THEIR RIVAL CONTENTIONS WITH REFERENCE TO FACTS EVIDENCE AND MA TERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE ISSUE IN RELATING TO LEVY OF PENALTY AND THE GROUNDS ARE INTER- RELATED. WE ACCORDINGLY PROCEED TO ADJUD ICATE THE ISSUE IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NO GROUND-WISE. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 27L(1)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVI ED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY ARGUED THAT CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOM E AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE TWO LIMBS OF S ECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 275 OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN ISSUED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF T HE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD ON THE ISSUE OF CONCEALING PARTICULA RS OF INCOME. HE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD ON THE ISSUE OF FURNISHING INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE AO IS REQUIRED TO IMPOSE PENALTY, THEN HE HA S TO IMPOSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ONLY. HE CANNO T CHANGE IN THE MIND IMMEDIATELY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR THE REASO NS OTHER THAN WHICH HE HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE PENALTY ORDER THAT THE PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTICE IS FOR CONCEALIN G THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ONCE THE SATISFACTION HAS BEEN ARRIVED BY THE A O THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HE HAS TO PROCEED IN THAT PROPOSITION AND THE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 8 THIS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE AO HAS OPTED TO LEVY PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, H E IS AT LIBERTY TO DO THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, PURPOSE OF ISSUING NOTIC E U/S 274 OF THE ACT IS FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THERE IS N O WHISPER BY THE AO REGARDING FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE PENALTY CAS E BEFORE HIM/LATER ON, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ASKED ANY EXPLANATION REGARDI NG FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE OR ONLY CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE IS NO C HARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE REGARDING FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. ONCE THE AO IS PROCEEDED ON THE FOTTINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS DISTINGUISHED FROM FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAV ING BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY WAS BASED ON FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FO R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, HENCE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVI ED. WE PLACE RELIANCE ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE GUIJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS LAKHDHIR LALJI REPORTED IN 85 ITR 7 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD AS FOLLOWS:- THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN COMMENCED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE ON A PARTICULAR FOOTING VIZ. CONCEALING OF PARTICUL AR OF INCOME, BUT THE FINAL CONCLUSION FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY WAS BASED ON A D IFFERENT FOOTING TOGETHER, VIZ. ON THE FOOTING OF FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF NCOME. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFOR E THE ORDER IMPOSING THE PENALTY WAS PASSED. THE VERY BASIS FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE INITIATED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER DI SAPPEARED WHEN THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HELD THAT THERE WA S NO SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE INSPECTING ITA NO. 28(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2004-05 9 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO IMPOS E A PENALTY U/S 27L(L)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT WAS CORRECT THEREFORE, RELYING UPON THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENTS, WE ALLOW GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL. 7. SINCE, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL ON GROUND NO.1 , ITSELF OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED AS BEING OF ACAD EMIC INTEREST ONLY. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED: 22.01.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.