VIOLET JULIUS PERIERA, THANE V. ITO 4(3), THANE

ITA 2957/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 295719914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMBIT MISHRA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07) SHRI JULIUS FRANCIS PEREIRA INCOME TAX OFFICER- 4(3 ) LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA SHINDE ALLEY, NEAR CHURCH POST GOKHIVARE, VASAI (E) THANE DISTT. VS. 2ND FLOOR, QURESHI MANSION GOKHALE ROAD, NAUPADA THANE PAN - ACKPP1438M APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SAMBIT MISHRA DATE OF HEARING: 24.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02.07.2014 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THESE APPEALS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THANE AND THEY PERTAIN TO ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 2. PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DI SPUTE BEFORE US. 3. THE APPEALS WERE FILED ON 01.05.2012 BY SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA. SHE EXPIRED ON 03.10.2012. SHRI JULIUS FRANCIS PERE IRA FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL STATING THAT HE SHOULD BE BROUG HT ON RECORD AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. THE LEARNE D D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NO OBJECTION FOR BRINGING THE SAID PERSO N AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY SHRI JULIUS FRANCIS PEREIRA I S BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS WERE TAK EN UP FOR HEARING. 4. IN RESPECT OF A.Y. 2005-06 PENALTY OF ` 6,44,196/- WAS LEVIED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 20,00,000/- IN THE SB ACCOUNT ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 2 OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINE D INCOME AND EVEN IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NO EXPLANATION WAS FILED WI TH REGARD TO THE SAME. FOR THE SAME REASON THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED TH E ACTION OF THE AO. 5. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE RAISED A THREE PRONGED LEGAL ARGUMENT, I.E.: (A) THE ASSESSEE IS BEING ASSESSED TO TAX AT THANE FROM YEAR TO YEAR UNDER PAN ACKPP1438M IN WHICH EVENT THE JURISDICTIO N TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT LIES WITH THE ITO, WARD 4(3), THANE WHER EAS THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ITO (HQ) (CIB), PUNE WHI CH IS VOID ABINITO. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAGE 1 ONWARDS OF THE P APER BOOK TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURNS OF IN COME FROM YEAR TO YEAR BEFORE ITO, THANE AND THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE ACCORDINGLY. IN HIS OPINION IT IS THE DUTY OF THE I TO (HQ) (CIB), PUNE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS NON-COOPERATIVE, TO FIND OU T AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX AT ANY OTHER PLAC E AND TO TRANSFER THE FILE TO ENABLE SUCH AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSME NT AS OTHERWISE THE ASSESSMENT BECOMES VOID AND CONSEQUENTIAL PENAL TY LEVIED IN THE CASE OF AN INVALID ASSESSMENT CANNOT STAND. IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED UPON SEVERAL ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE PLEA ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EVEN IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS VA LIDITY OF ASSESSMENT CAN BE CHALLENGED, WAS ACCEPTED. (B) SECTION 275(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT REFERS TO PERI OD OF LIMITATION WITHIN WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED A ND COMPLETED. IN THE INSTANT CASE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON 26.11.2008 AND PENALTY WAS LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) ON 24.04.2009. NO DOUBT, RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THE AO IS WELL WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO LEVY PENALTY BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAW THE APP EAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WHICH WAS FORMALLY ACCEPTED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND UNDER SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES THE TIME LIMIT FOR INITIATION OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 3 HAVE TO BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WHICH, IN THE INSTANT CASE, IS 26.12.2007 (ORDER PA SSED BY THE ITO (HQ) (CIB), PUNE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT) AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON 24.04.2009 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ON THI S ASPECT ALSO THE LEARNED COUNSEL RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS OF TH E TRIBUNAL. (C) IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT SECTION 274(2) OF THE AC T MANDATES PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER WHEREVER PENALTY LEVIABLE EXCEEDS ` 10,000/ ` 20,000/- WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON 24.04.2 009 WHILE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT WAS DATED 28.04.2009 AND THUS THE PROCEDURE PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 274(2) WAS NOT F OLLOWED RESULTING IN THE ORDER BEING PASSED CONTRARY TO LAW AND, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE REFERRED TO SECTION 274(2) OF THE ACT AND IN PARTICULAR THE LANGUAGE NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE MADE . EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL ... RELEVANT PROV ISION IS EXTRACTED HEREIN. (2) NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAPTE R SHALL BE MADE - (A) BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WHERE THE PENALTY EXCEEDS TEN THOUSAND RUPEES; (B) BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [OR DEPUTY COM MISSIONER], WHERE THE PENALTY EXCEEDS TWENTY THOUSAND RUPEES, EXCEPT WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE [JOINT] COMM ISSIONER. IN THE IN INSTANT CASE THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON 24 .04.2009 WHEREAS IN PARA 6 OF THE PENALTY ORDER IT IS CLEARLY MENTIO NED THAT APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT WAS OBTAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 28.04. 2009. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. OBJECTED TO THE TECHNICAL GROUNDS BY CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SE CTION 144 OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO WAY FOR THE AO TO KNOW AS TO WHETHER TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX AT ANY OTHER PLACE, WHICH CAN BE NOTICED FRO M THE FACT THAT EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ADDRESS IS MENTIONED AS 3267, BUNDLE NO. 7, INDIVIDUAL WHICH CAN ONLY BE DONE WHEN ADDRESS IS NOT KNOWN. SUCH CASES ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 4 ARE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292(B) OF THE ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE AO WAS OF THE BONA FIDE OPINION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE I NITIATED AFTER APPROPRIATE ORDER IS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS). CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE CBDT IS NOT BINDING ON THE TRIBUNAL, IF ONE HAS TO GO BY THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE, AS OTHERWISE ANY PERS ON CAN PREFER AN APPEAL AND MAY WITHDRAW ITS APPEAL AFTER LAPSE OF ONE YEAR WHICH WOULD AUTOMATICALLY GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN ADVANTAGE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH COULD NOT BE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THUS EVEN WHERE THE PERMISSION IS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER TO WITHDR AW THE APPEAL IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A REGULAR ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND PENALTY CAN BE INITIATED BY TAKING THE SAID DATE FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPUTING LIMITATION PERIOD. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE DATE OF O RDER WAS SHOWN AS 24.04.2009 BUT IN THE SAME ORDER THE APPROVAL OF TH E ADDL. COMMISSIONER IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED ON 28.04.2009, WHICH IN DICATES THAT THE APPROVAL WAS OBTAINED PRIOR TO PASSING THE ORDER AN D THUS CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE VALID. HOWEVER, NO EVID ENCE, WHATSOEVER, WAS FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD TO INDICATE AS TO THE DATE OF APPROVAL. 7. ON THE CONTRARY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E EMPHASISED THAT PRIOR APPROVAL IMPLIES THAT PRIOR TO REACHING A CON CLUSION THE AO SHOULD HAVE ADDRESSED A LETTER TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY AND ON OBTAINING APPROVAL ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED AND THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THE SAME. 8. EVEN ON MERITS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HEREIN EXPIRED AT UNEXPECTED AGE. THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES ARE SONS OF LATE FRANCIS PHILIP GONSALVES. LATE FRANCIS USED TO STAY WITH HIS DAUGHTER, SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA. MR. FRANCIS P HILIP GONSALVES RETIRED FROM RAILWAY SERVICE AND USED HIS RETIREMENT FUNDS IN MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY. BY THE END OF 2004 HIS HEALTH DETERIORATE D DUE TO ATTACK OF CANCER CONSEQUENT TO WHICH HE DECREASED HIS MONEY LENDING ACTIVITY WITH AN INTENTION TO WIND UP THE ACTIVITY IN THE COURSE OF TIME. LEGAL HEIRS DEPOSED ON OATH THAT TO THE BEST OF THEIR INFORMATION HE HA S ACCUMULATED ABOUT ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 5 ` 20,00,000/- BY MARCH, 2005 AND HE HAS ABLE TO GET A LITTLE MORE ` 10,00,000/- FROM BORROWERS, WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE B EEN DEPOSITED IN MARCH, 2005 AND JANUARY, 2006 IN THE ACCOUNT OF SMT . VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA WITH BASSIEN CATHOLIC CO-OP. BANK LTD. WITH AN INTE NTION TO DISTRIBUTE THE AMOUNT AMONGST HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THOUGH SHE WAS N OT ABLE TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN BECAUSE OF THE DEPRESSED CIRCUMSTANCES, EVE N TO FURNISH FURTHER MATERIAL AT THIS STAGE, ON ACCOUNT OF HER DEMISE ON 03.10.2012, LEGAL HEIRS REQUESTED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER. AT ANY RATE, THIS BEING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE EXPLANATION FURN ISHED ABOVE SHOULD BE TREATED AS CORRECT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE GAVE THE SAME EXPLANATION FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN SO FAR AS A.Y. 2005-06 IS CONCERNED, THO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE TECHNICAL GROUNDS WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP THE THIRD TECHNICAL GROUND, I.E. PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED WITH PRIOR AP PROVAL OF THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ORDER PASSED UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) ITSELF SHOWS CONTRADICTORY FACTS AND NO MATERIAL, WHATSOEV ER, WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES WE HOLD THAT THE AO HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE MANDATORY PROCEDUR E, PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 274(2) OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, PENALTY L EVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WE ORD ER ACCORDINGLY. 10. SINCE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE QUASHED IN A.Y. 2 005-06, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES ON MERITS AS WELL ON THE OTHER TWO TECHNICAL GROUNDS. IT DESERVES TO BE MENTIONED THAT ON THE OT HER TWO TECHNICAL GROUNDS THIS BENCH HAS CERTAIN RESERVATIONS WITH RE GARD TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE US. FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED INFORMATION WITH REGARD TO ADDRESS AND PLACE OF ASS ESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO IS NOT EXPECTED TO DO AN IMPOSSIBILITY AND F OR NOT DOING SUCH AN IMPOSSIBLE TASK CAN THE ASSESSEE TAKE BENEFIT OF HE R OWN ABSENCE, BY FORCING THE AO TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, AND NOW TAKE THE SHIELD OF SECTION 275(1) OF THE ACT BY CON TENDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED? ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 6 SIMILARLY, WHEN AN ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL, THE AO IS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEFER THE PROCEEDINGS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY TILL THE CIT(A) PASSES AN ORDER. THE ACT PRESCRIBES THAT THE AO IS ENTITLED TO INITIATE AND COMPLETE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHIN A STIPULATED PERIOD FROM THE DAT E OF MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. AT THE SAME TIME, IF AN ASSESSEE PREFERS AN APPEAL, THE AO IS SUPPOSED T O WAIT TILL THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IF A VIEW IS TAKEN THAT IN THE EVENT OF WITHDRAWAL OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE LI MITATION PERIOD WOULD BE RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER IT MAY BECOME HANDY TO INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE MAZE OF LAW BY FILING AN APPEAL AND WAIT FOR SUFFICIENT TIME AND TO WITHD RAW THE APPEAL BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CASE ON MERITS BUT AT THE SAME TIME TAKE THE BENEFIT OF LIMITATION VIS--VIS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THERE ARE NUMBER OF DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. SINCE WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE A SSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THIRD TECHNICAL GROUND, IT IS NOT NECESSARY AT THIS STAGE TO GO INTO THE MOOT QUESTIONS IN THE FORM OF TECHNICAL GROUNDS (A) AND (B). IN THE RESULT, ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS QUASHE D AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 11. WITH REGARD TO PENALTY LEVIED FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IT D ESERVES TO BE NOTICED THAT THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF ` 3,78,970/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 10,00,000/- MADE ON 12.01.2006 IS NOT PROPERLY EXPL AINED, WHEREAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT DID NOT BELONG TO HER AND IN FACT IT WAS HE R FATHERS CASH AND OUT OF HIS OWN SOURCE. ACCORDING TO HIS LAST WISH THE CASH WAS TO BE DISTRIBUTED AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN HER ACCOUNT ONLY FOR SAFE CUSTODY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE CASH KEP T IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS REDEPOSITED AND EVEN THE INTEREST THERE FROM WAS ALSO NOT OFFERED TO TAX AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT AFTER BEING DIAGNOSED WITH CAN CER HER FATHER GAVE THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS TO BE AMICABLY DIS TRIBUTED AMONGST THE FAMILY MEMBERS BUT UPON THE DEATH OF HER FATHER IT BECAME DIFFICULT FOR HER TO GATHER THE MATERIAL TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF HIS M ONEY; TO BUY PEACE OF ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 7 MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THUS THE ASSESSEE ALWAYS COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE REFORE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A DELIBERATE ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO LEVY PENALTY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON TH E AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE US AND THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BEFORE THE AO A S WELL AS THE CIT(A) TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR INCOME TAX AS SESSEE AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT SHE WAS CAPABLE OF EARNING SO MUCH OF INCOME OTHER THAN THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED TO TAX. LOOK ING FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX TO BUY PEACE, IT SHOULD NOT BE CONCLUDED THAT IT WAS HER CONCEALED I NCOME. HE THUS REQUESTED FOR CANCELLATION OF PENALTY. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. AS CAN BE NOTICED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THOUGH THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLA INED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT SHE WAS CAPABLE OF EARNING THAT MUCH OF INCOME FROM ANY SPECIFIC SOURCE. SHE HAD CONSISTENT LY TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE MONEY BELONGS TO HER FATHER WHO IN TURN UTILISED HI S HARD EARNED RETIREMENT FUNDS FOR EARNING INTEREST. THERE IS NO FINDING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ANY OTHER SOURCE FROM WHICH SHE WAS CA PABLE OF GENERATING THAT MUCH OF INCOME. 15. THE LEARNED D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTS BROUGHT OUT IN THE AFFIDAVIT BY THE LEGAL HEIRS. TAKING AN OVERALL PIC TURE AND PARTICULARLY ON THE FACT THAT NEITHER SHRI FRANCIS PHILIP GONSALVES NOR SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA ARE ALIVE TODAY, A LENIENT VIEW OF THE MATTER DESER VES TO BE TAKEN; WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT SHE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED TO TAX TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND THUS WE HOLD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IS BONAFIDE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO AND THE CI T(A) AND CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. ITA NO. 2956 & 2957/MUM/2012 SMT. VIOLET JULIUS PEREIRA 8 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (D. MANMOHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 2 ND JULY, 2014 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) II- THANE 4. THE CIT III- THANE 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.