M/s Heritage Marketing, Chandigarh V. ITO, W-3(2), Chandigarh

ITA 284/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9948 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: OM DUTT SHARMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHSMD, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.284/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 M/S HERITAGE MARKETING VS. THE ITO SCO-64, F.F., SECTOR-20-C WARD-3(2), DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAAFH6537R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. OM DUTT SHARMA REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 26/06/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/09/2018 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-1 CHAND IGARH[IN SHORT CIT(A)] DATED 19-12-17, PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT,1961,(HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACT) , CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ACT. 2. PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN LEVIED ON T HE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE(IN SHORT TDS) AS REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26A S AND THAT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , BEING ATTRIBUTED TO GROSS RECEIP TS NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. WHILE THE FORM NO. 26AS REVEALED TDS DEDUCTED OF RS. 3,25,103/- THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTED , HAD ACTUALL Y CLAIMED TDS OF RS. 3,21,684/- ONLY. WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD CLAIMED LESSER CREDIT OF TDS OF RS. 3,419/- AS TH ERE WAS DISPUTE REGARDING BILLING OF RS. 3,13,542/- AND ACCORDINGLY TDS WITH CERTAI N PARTIES. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID GROSS RECEIPT OF RS. 3,13,542/ - HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DIFFERENCE. PENALTY PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE ALSO INITIATED AND PENALTY LEVIED ON THE SAME AMOUNTING TO RS. 96,890/-. 2 3. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE RECEIPTS HAD BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE ADDITION ONLY TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION. A PARTY WISE DESCRIPTI ON OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS ADDED WAS GIVEN, POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOU NTS WERE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONV INCED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO GIVE ANY COGENT EXPLANATION EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HAD IN FACT AGREED TO THE ADDITION. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT HAVING ONCE AGREED TO THE ADDITION THE ASSESSEE WAS PRECLUDED FROM GIVING ANY EXPLANATION IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THAT THE DISCLOSURE DID N OT RELEASE THE ASSESSEE FROM PENAL PROCEEDINGS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA PVT. LTD.VS CIT 358 I TR 593 IN THIS REGARD. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 7.3 THUS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN EXP LANATION-1 (SUPRA) HAVE TO BE EXAMINED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,13,542/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRY DONE BY H IM. IT WAS DETECTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DE CLARED THE GROSS RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,13,542/-BUT THE TDS HAS BEEN CLAI MED ON IT IN THE ITR. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THIS DIFF ERENCE BUT IT IS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. EVEN DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REC ONCILE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,13,542/- AND THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE A O IN THE PENALTY ORDER IN PARA 4. IN FACT, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE SAID ADDITION AND HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW AT THE STAGE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PENA LTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY AS MENTIONED I N PARA 7.1 ABOVE. ONCE ADDITION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TUR N AROUND AND GIVE ANOTHER EXPLANATION DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. DURIN G THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,13,542/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON SOUND REASONING HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME. ASSESSEE HAS S TATED THAT HE HAD SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL SUM WITH A VIEW TO AVOID LITIGATION AND BUY PEACE. STATUTE DOES NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C). IT HAS BEEN SETTLED BY THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA PVT. LTD VS. CIT (358 ITR 593) THA T THE DISCLOSURE DOES NOT RELEASE THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C). THE LAW DOES NOT PROVIDE THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE MAKES A DISCLOSURE OF HIS CONCEALED INCOME, HE HAS TO BE ABSOLVED FROM PENALTY. CONSEQU ENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOM E. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FILED BY IT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIFFERENT ON FACTS AND HENCE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. TH E EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT BONAFIDE AND THE CASE OF THE APPEL LANT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY EXPLANATION-1(B) BELOW SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. T HE PENALTY LEVIED IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY TH E APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 3 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME ASSESSEE HAS COME UP IN A PPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPEL LANT. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ALTER OR AMEND AN Y GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED EXPLANA TION OF THE DISCREPANCY DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BUT THE CIT(A) HAD R EFUSED TO CONSIDER THE SAME HOLDING THAT ONCE THE ADDITION HAD BEEN ACCEPTED TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT TURN AROUND AND GIVE ANOTHER EXPLANATION DURING THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDING. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL ALONG THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS ON ACCOU NT OF THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS IN FORM NO.26AS AND THAT SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THAT IT WAS ONLY TDS ON DISPUTED BILLINGS, WHICH BILLINGS WERE DULY ACCO UNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT CREDIT RELATING TO THE TDS HAD NOT BE EN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ONGOING DISPUTE. OUR ATTENTION WAS D RAWN TO THE LETTER FILED TO THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING UNDER SECTI ON 143(3), PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 42 TO 43 AND 47 TO 50 IN THIS R EGARD STATING SO AS UNDER: 08.10.15 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH. MADAM, SUB.: - M/S. HERITAGE MARKETING SCO - 64, SECTOR - 20C, CHANDIGARH. ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2013-14. PAN - AAAFH6537R. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. ITO/W-3(2)/C HD/2015-16/QN AY 13- 14/895 DATED 30.09.2015 IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. . .. IV) THERE IS TDS OF RS. 3,25,1037- AS PER FORM NO. 26AS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TDS FOR RS. 3,21,6847- AS THERE WAS DISPUTE REGARDING BILLING OF RS. 3,13,5427- AND ACCORDINGLY TDS OF RS. 3,4197- WITH CERTAIN PARTIES. ALL THESE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROS S RECEIPTS. NECESSARY DETAILS ARE BEING FURNISHED HEREWITH. 4 10/08/2015 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2), CHANDIGARH. MADAM, SUB.: - M/S. HERITAGE MARKETING SCO - 64, SECTOR - 20C, CHANDIGARH. ASSESSMENT YEAR - 2013-14. PAN - AAAFH6537R. PLEASE REFER TO YOUR OFFICE LETTER NO. ITO/W-3(2)/C HD/2015-16/QN AY 13-14/361 DATED 29/07/2015 IN THE ABOVE SAID CASE. . . . . 20. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T.D.S. ON THE BASIS O F FORM NO. 16 RECEIVED BY IT BUT HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE RECEIPTS. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE SURRENDER ONLY TO BUY THE PEACE OF MIND WHIC H WAS SO STATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS VIDE LETTER DT. 04/04/2016 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 33 TO 35.LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NECESSARY EXPLANATION OF THE DISCREPANCY H AD BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE CIT(A) OR DER ALSO AT PAGE NO. 4 AS UNDER: ' IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 96,890/- ON ACCO UNT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 3,13,542/-. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE DUE TO THE DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN THE TDS IN 26AS AND IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THE T.D.S. RECONCILIATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNTED TO RS. 3,419/~ ONLY. THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 3,13,542/- HA S BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE LEDGER COPIES OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY AGR EED TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,13,542/- IN ORDER TO PURCHASE PEA CE & AVOID LITIGATION. THAT IS WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT JUED AN APPEAL AGA INST ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAID THE TAX ACCORDINGLY. A BRIEF NOTE ON THE D ISCREPANCY IS BEING GIVEN AS BELOW:- 12.10.2012 ROHAN BUILDERS (P) LTD BILLING WAS MADE FOR RS. 1,13,809/- INCLUDING SERVI CE TAX OF RS. 12,519/- ON 12.10.2012. A CREDIT NOTE OF RS. 86,517/- INCLUDING SERVICE TAX OF RS. 9,517/- WAS RECEIVED ON 28.02.2013. ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE REFLE CTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. DIFFERENCE COMES TO RS. 27,292/- (1,13,809 - 85,517 ) AS AGAINST RS. 28,350/- SHOWN BY ROHAN BUILDERS. 07.03.2013 S.S. CONTRACTORS CO. BILLING WAS MADE ON 07.03.2013FOR RS. 42,697/- INCL UDING SERVICE TAX OF RS. 4,697/-. THE SAME RS. 38,000/- (42,697 - 4,467) IS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF S.S. CONTRACTION. 5 30.03.2013 ALDHA ENGINEERS (P) LTD. BILLING WAS MADE ON 30.03.2013 FOR RS. 2,47,192/- I NCLUDING SERVICE TAX OF RS. 27,192/-. BUT THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED ON RS. 2,47,192/ -INSTEAD OF RS. 2,20,000/- (2,47,192 - 27,192). BUT THE SAME HAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF ALDHA ENGINEERS (P) LTD.' 7. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STATED TH AT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO EXPLANATION HAD BEEN FURNISHED WAS I NCORRECT AS ALSO THE FINDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE SAID ADDITION AN D THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAD CATEGORICALLY CONCEALED / FURNISHED INCORRECT PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ALSO ERRED IN REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION HAVING ONCE ACCEPTED THE ADDITION, POIN TING OUT THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE FROM THE QUAN TUM PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EXPLANATION WHICH WERE HITHERTO NOT FURNISHED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THEREFORE STATED THAT THE ASSESEE HAVING FURNISHED EXPLANATION OF THE DIFFER ENCE IN THE TDS AND HAVING DULY SHOWN THAT THERE WERE NO UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF HAVING CO NCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE PENA LTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS UNJUSTIFIED. 8. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND EMPHASIZED THAT THE FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE WERE I DENTICAL TO THE CASE OF MAK DATA (SUPRA) WITH THE ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED T HE AMOUNT ON BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE SAME AFTER DETECTION BY THE AO , AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS JUSTIFIED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US AND GONE THROUGH THE DOCU MENT REFERRED TO US. 10. WE UNHESITATINGLY HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIABL E ON THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCEALING/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. UNDISPUTEDLY PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIFFERENCE OF TDS REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS AND THAT OF WHICH CREDIT WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF I NCOME, HOLDING IT TO BE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT AS RIGHTL Y POINTED OUT BY THE 6 LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE ALWAYS, DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ,WAS THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY OF TDS AND THERE WAS NO UNA CCOUNTED RECEIPTS RELATING TO THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE ,WE FIND HAD ALSO EXPLAIN ED THE REASON FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS AS BEING TDS OF DISPUTED BILLINGS NOT TAKEN CREDIT OF IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED ALL DETAILS OF THE IMPUGNED RECEIPTS AND THE TDS RELATING TO THE SAME, POINTING OUT THAT ALL THE BILLS HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LETTERS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) DULY CON FIRM THE AFORESAID FACTS. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE ABOVE FACTS. I N SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ,WE CONCUR WITH THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT DU E EXPLANATION HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS. TH EREFORE MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE SAID ADDITION DOES NOT UPTUR N THE FACTS OF THE CASE TO MAKE IT A CASE OF CONCEALING/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FOR THE SAME REASON, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A VALID UNCO NTROVERTED EXPLANATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TDS ,WE CANNOT AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE INCOME ON BEING DETECTED BY THE AO. IN FACT ,WE HOLD, THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF AGREEING TO THE ADDITION OF ANY CON CEALED INCOME BUT MERELY OF AGREEING TO THE ADDITION TO AVOID LITIGATION, AS CO NTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (SUPRA) THEREFORE DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ,SI NCE THERE IS NO SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THE PRESENT CASE AFTER DETECTION AS IN TH E CASE DECIDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN MAK DATA(SUPRA). WE ARE A LSO NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN NOT AT THIS JUNCTURE FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION HAVING ONCE AGREED TO THE ADDITION. FIRSTLY ,AS NOTED ABOVE BY US THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY NEW EXPLANATION BUT HAS ONLY FURNISHED DETAILS OF ITS EXPLANATION IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . THE ASSESSEE HAD ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY OF TDS CRED IT AND NOT OF RECEIPTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DIFFERENCE. FURTHER IT IS SETTL ED POSITION OF LAW THAT QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AN D SEPARATE AND THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH ALL EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION H ITHERTO NOT FURNISHED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 11. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE WE THEREFORE DIRECT THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF RS BE DELETED AND THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS THEREFOR E SET ASIDE. 7 12. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA G UPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24/09/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR