The ACIT,(OSD)Range-1, Ahmedabad V. M/s. CLP Power Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

ITA 2878/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 287820514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHANKARLAL MEENA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Business income; Depreciation; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Unabsorbed depreciation; Change of opinion; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.517 /AHD/2011 A.Y.: 2004-05 CLP POWER INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 TH FLOOR, CHANAKYA BUILDING OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAACP6900B VS ITO WARD 1(3) AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.2878/AHD/2011 A.Y.: 2004-05 THE ACIT (OSD) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD. VS CLP POWER INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 TH FLOOR, CHANAKYA BUILDING OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAACP6900B. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO.279/AHD/2011 (ARISING OUT OF IT NO.2878/AHD/2011) A.Y.: 2004-05 CLP POWER INDIA PVT. LTD. 8 TH FLOOR, CHANAKYA BUILDING OFF ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AAACP6900B VS THE ACIT (OSD) RANGE-1, AHMEDABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHANKARLAL MEENA, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/ 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/09/2013 ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 2 - O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION PERTAINS TO THE SAME ASSESSEE; HENCE, CONSOLIDATED AND HEREBY DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. A. ITA NO.517/AHD/2011 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 2. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANA TING FROM AN ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-VI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 14.12.2010. EARLIER THE GROUNDS WERE NARRATIVE; HENCE, THOSE WERE CONCISED AND THROUGH GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S.147 OF THE IT ACT. 3. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOW BEFORE US WAS PASSED U/ S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT, DATED 24.11.2008. AS PER PARAGRA PH 2, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT, ON VERIFICATION OF THE CASE RECORDS IT WAS NOTICED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.257.97 LAKHS WHICH WAS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE AGAIN CLAIMED THE SAME, I.E., UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.257.9 7 LAKHS WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR THE A.Y. 2007-4-05 WH ICH WAS WRONGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS RE -OPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 27. 03.2008. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE AO HAS ISSUED SHOW C AUSE AS TO WHY THE CLAIM OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.257.97 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK WHILE CALCULATING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB O F IT ACT FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLA IMED THE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION TWICE, FIRST IN THE YEAR 2003-04 AND A GAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 3 - YEAR 2004-05 WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 1 15JB. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE FIGURES HAS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WERE AS UNDER: THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED DECLARING INCOME AT RS.NIL AFTER SETTING OFF THE BROUGHT FORW ARD UNABSORBED BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF EARLIER ASSESSM ENT YEAR TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,69,63,276/- AND THE TAX WAS PAID U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT ON BOOK PROFIT OF RS.2,56,96,286/-. THE SAID BOOK PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT AFTER REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,57, 97,105/-. ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.NIL AND BOOK PROFIT U/S.115JB WAS COMPUTED AS RS.2,59,57,980/- A FTER ALLOWING THE REDUCTION OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATIO N OF RS.2,57,97,105/- AS CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY. HOWEVER, NO UNABSORBED DEPR ECIATION IS AVAILABLE TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD IN THE CASE OF COMPANY FOR TH E A.Y. 2004-05 WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT SIN CE DEDUCTION OF RS.257.97 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS ALR EADY CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04 FOR COMPUTATION OF BOO K PROFIT U/S. 115JB OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX TO THE EXTENT OF RS.257.97 LAKHS. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE TAX LIABI LITY U/S. 115JB AS UNDER: COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABLILITY U/S. 115JB OF IT ACT BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JB AS PER ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, DATED 06.12.2006 RS. 2,59,57,9 80/- ADD: UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE RS. 2,57,97,105/- RS. 5,17,55,085/- 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER THAT OBJECTION OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED AS UNDER: THE GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST REOPENING OF THE ASSESS MENT U/S.147 OF IT ACT. ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2006. IT WAS FOUND THAT APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED UNABS ORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.257.97 LAKHS WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 HOWEVER APPELLANT AGAIN CLAIMED THE SAME WHILE COMP UTING THE BOOK PROFIT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. FOR THIS ASSESSMENT WA S REOPENED ON 27 MARCH, 2008. THE REOPENING WAS WITHIN FOUR YEARS AND HENCE THE PROVISO TO SECTION ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 4 - 147 DOESNT APPLY. APPELLANT OBJECTED THE REOPENING ON FACTS WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I FOUND THAT PRI MA-FACIE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR WHICH REOPENING WERE JUSTIFIED. THER E IS NO QUESTION OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THIS ISSUE SINCE EARLIER ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT EXPRESS ANY OPINION ON THE ISSUE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 5.1 ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT LEARNED AR HAS NOT SERIOUSLY CONTESTED THIS GROUND AND FAIRLY PLEADED THAT THE SAME CAN BE DECIDED AS PER LAW. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DR, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND PLEADED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION BEFORE THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT . THAT SATISFACTION WAS DULY COMMUNICATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO BEEN DRAWN ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3), DATED 6.12.2006 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 FOR THE PURPOSE TH AT THE AO HAD FAILED TO EXAMINE THE CALCULATION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATI ON FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF TAX LIABILITY U/S.115JB OF IT ACT. T HE SAID DISCREPANCY IN THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS POINTED OUT BY THE R EVENUE DEPARTMENT APPEARS TO BE CORRECTED. IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THERE IS NO MENTION AT ALL ABOUT THE COMPUTATION OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION. IN ANY CASE, ONCE THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION HAD ALREADY BEEN EXHAUSTED IN A.Y. 2003-04 THEN LEGALLY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DOUBL E CLAIM IN A.Y. 2004-05. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT U/S. 147 R.W.S 148 WAS JUSTIFIABLE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS , THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 6. NEXT GROUND IS CHALLENGING THE ADJUSTMENT OF UNA BSORBED DEPRECIATION WHILE COMPUTING THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 1 15JB. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS REPRODUCED THE COMPUTATION OF TH E TAX LIABILITY FOR ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 5 - A.Y.2003-04 U/S.115JB OF IT ACT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT HAD ALREADY BEEN OBSERVED AND EXHAUSTED IN T HAT YEAR. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS THEREAFTER HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. THE ISSUE IS RELATING TO DEDUCTION OF U NABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS WHICHEVER IS LOWER FR OM BACK PROFIT COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 115JB. WHEREVER EITHER OF THE FIGURES IS NIL, NO DEDUCTION IS TO BE MADE FROM BOOK PROFIT. UNDER THESE CLEAR PROVISI ONS, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IN T HE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WAS FULLY UTILIZED AND REDUCED FROM THE BOOK PROFIT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE WHICH CAN B E REDUCED IN THIS YEAR. SINCE UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AS PER BOOKS IS NIL F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05, IT WILL NOT BE PERMISSIBLE TO REDUCE ANY AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS FROM BOOK PROFIT. IN VIEW OF THIS CLEAR PROVISION, WHAT ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS DONE IS JUSTIFIED. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED BY APPELLANT ARE NOT R ELEVANT SINCE THESE ARE RELATING TO EARLIER PROVISIONS IN WHICH SUCH REDUCT ION OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OR BROUGHT FORWARD BUSINESS LOSS WAS N OT THERE. RELYING ON SUCH DECISIONS DOES NOT HELP THE APPELLANT. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF APOLLO TYRES RELATES TO 115J IN WHICH NO SUCH AD JUSTMENT WAS PERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE THE DECISION DOES NOT HELP APPELLANTS CO NTENTION. OTHER DECISIONS ARE ALSO NOT ON 115JB WHEREIN THIS PROVISION IS ENA CTED THEREFORE THESE ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THA T THERE IS NO BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AVAILABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF REDUCING THE SAME FROM BOOK PROFIT. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND ON DUE CONSIDER ATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE ORDER OF LEA RNED CIT(A), HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 8. REST OF THE GROUNDS ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE BEING IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234 A AND 234B/C OF IT ACT AS ALSO CHALLENGING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THESE GROUNDS ARE PREMATUR E AT PRESENT; HENCE DISMISSED. ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 6 - 9. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. B. ITA NO.2878/AHD/2011 (REVENUES APPEAL) 10. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF PENA LTY OF RS.3,12,425/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT. THIS PENALTY WAS LEVIED BECAUSE WHILE CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME VIDE A N ORDER U/S. 143(3), DATED 6.12.2006, THE AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS U/S. 155JB AND THE INCOME WAS TAXED ACCORDINGLY. ADMITTEDLY, THERE WAS NO TAX ON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME. DUE TO THIS REASON, WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C), VIDE ORDER DATE D 30 TH OF MARCH, 2010, IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DE TERMINED AT RS. NIL BY THE AO AFTER DISALLOWING CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.8,14,793/-. THE BOOK PROFIT WAS COMPUTED AFTER AN ADJUSTMENT OF DEF ERRED TAX OF RS.2,61,694/-. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO CLEAR CUT FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER ABOUT THE INCOME ON WHIC H THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY. IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPH, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVADED THE TAX BY FI LING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THUS WORKED OUT THE PENALTY OF RS.3 ,12,425/-. THE SAME WAS CHALLENGED. 11. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY IN THE F OLLOWING MANNER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; PENALTY OR DER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY ON ADD ITION MADE IN NORMAL COMPUTATION AND ALSO ON ADDITION OF DEFERRED TAX LI ABLILITY MADE UNDER SECTION 115 JB. INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS COMPUTED UNDER SECTION 1 15JB AND THEREFORE ADDITION MADE IN NORMAL COMPUTATION W ILL NOT ATTRACT PENALTY IN VIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BACHUBHAI DOOTHWALA PVT. LTD. ORDER DATED 21.4.2011. IN THIS CASE THE ITAT HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WILL NOT BE THERE ONCE T HE INCOME IS ASSESSED ON THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JA AND NOT UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. APPELLANT ALSO RELIED UPON OTHER DECISIONS ON THE I SSUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 7 - THESE DECISIONS, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ADDITION MADE IN NORMAL COMPUTATION IS DELETED. AS REGARDS PENALTY LEVIED ON ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX LIABILITY TO BOOK PROFIT UNDER SECTION 115JB, I AGREE WITH THE A PPELLANTS SUBMISSION THAT THE AMENDMENT WAS MADE BY FINANCE ACT 2008 WITH RET ROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND THEREFORE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE ADDED DEFERRED T AX LIABILITY TO BOOK PROFIT WHILE FILING TAX RETURN. SINCE, AT THE TIME OF FILI NG RETURN OF INCOME, APPELLANT APPLIED THE LAW AS IT STOOD THAT TIME. SUBSEQUENT A MENDMENT WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT CANNOT BE ANTICIPATED BY ANYON E AND ADDITION MADE ON THIS BASIS WILL NOT RESULT IN LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCO RDINGLY PENALTY LEVIED OF THIS ADDITION IS ALSO DELETED. 11.1 WITH THESE FACTUAL BACKGROUNDS, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THERE ARE NUMBER OF DECISIONS WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HA S DIRECTLY BEEN DECIDED IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR AS LISTED BELOW: (A) RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD., 322 ITR 158 ( SC) (B) NALWA SONS INVESTMENT LTD. (DEL. HC) (C) BSEL INFRASTRUCTURE REALTY LTD., 137 ITD 61 (I TAT MUM) (D) HINDUSTAN ELECTRO GRAPHICS LTD., 243 ITR 48 (S C) (E) YAHOO INDIA (P.) LTD., 33 TAXMANN. COM 32 (BOM . HC) 11.2. OUR ATTENTION HAS ALSO DRAWN ON AN ORDER OF I TAT A BENCH, AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE-2 BHAVNAGAR VS. BACHUBHAI DUDHWALA PVT. LTD. BEARING ITA NO.1372/AH D/2009, ORDER DATED 21 ST OF APRIL, 2011, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE CASE L AWS CITED, THE QUESTION WHETHER PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE AS SESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WHEN ULTIMAT ELY THE TOTAL INCOME IS DETERMINED U/S.115JA OF THE I.T. ACT HAS BEEN ANSWE RED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE DETAILS, BEFORE US, AN ORD ER DATED 21.5.2007 GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A)'S JUDGMENT-DATED 30/04/2007 HAS BEEN PLACED ACCORDING TO WHICH IN QUANTUM APPEAL A RELIEF OF RS.1.6,77,152/- WAS GRANTED, HENCE, LEAVING BEHIND THE NET TAXABLE INCOME ONLY AT OF RS.2,62,66 7/- AGAINST WHICH THERE WAS BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,37,850/-, HENC E, THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME REMAINED AT NIL. IT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NO TICE THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN U/S.153A OF THE I.T. ACT, THE BOOK PROFIT U/ S.115JA WAS DISCLOSED AT RS. 16,28,110/- AND THE TAX WAS ACCORDINGLY PAID. ON AC COUNT OF THESE UNDISPUTED INFORMATION, THE CASE BEFORE US IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE AFORECITED DECISION THAT ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 8 - IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WOULD HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY ONCE THE INCOME IS ASSESSED ON THE BOOK PROFIT U/S. 115JA AND NOT UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. RESULTANTLY, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REJECT THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE . 11.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS AND ALS O CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HEREBY AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A). WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO VA LID REASON FOR IMPOSING THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY ON THIS ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE, HENCE HEREBY DISMISSED. C. C.O. NO. 279/AHD/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2878/A HD/2011) 12. THIS C.O. IS IN SUPPORT OF DELETION OF THE PENA LTY BY LEARNED CIT(A). NO SPECIFIC GRIEVANCE HAS BEEN RAISED; HENC E, LEARNED AR HAS FAIRLY EXPRESSED NOT TO PRESS THIS CO. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME HAS BECOME REDUNDANT BECAUSE THE CONNECTED APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND CO AS WELL AS THE REVENUES APPEAL, ALL ARE DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/09/2013 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR.P.S. TRUE COPY COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT ITA N O.517, 2878/AHD/2011 & CO NO.279/AHD/2011 CLP POWER PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD. A.Y. 2004-05 - 9 - 4. THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, AHMEDABAD