Shri Hilal Ahmed Baktoo, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3258/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6761 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 06-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. I.C. SUDHIR , JUDICIAL M EMBER AND SH. O.P. KANT , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3257 & 3258 /DEL/ 2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 M/S. HILAL AHMED BAKTOO, FLAT NO. G - 58 (2 ND FLOOR), NEW DELHI. (PAN:ADTPB7486P) VS. ITO, WARD - 32(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. K. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SH. T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26.02.2016 ORDER PER O.P. KANT , A. M. : THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 09.03.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 . THE FIRST APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION S MADE IN ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ORDER AND THE SECOND IS IN RESPECT OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF ADDITION S . BOTH THE APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR CONVENIENCE BEING RELATED MATTERS . ITA NO. 3257/DEL/2015, AY 2009 - 10 2. GROUNDS OF APPEA L RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS INCORRECTLY CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 58,91,000 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT B - 4 GOPAL DADI, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR WHEREAS THE SAID PROPERTY WAS 2 JOINTLY AND EQUALLY PURCHASED WITH MY BROTHER AND THEREFORE ONLY 50% OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 58,91,000 AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,45,500 WAS MY SHARE. 2. RS. 3,00,000 WAS MY OWN CONTRIBUTIONS BY A CHEQUE NO. 526991 DRAWN ON THE INDUS I ND BANK, BARAKHAMBA ROAD , NEW DELHI AND SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS EXPLAINED IT WAS INCORRECTLY ADDED BACK AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 3. THAT I HAD RECEIVED GIFTS/LOANS FROM FAMILY /FRIENDS WHICH HAD BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED BY EVIDENCE AND THE REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONS EXCEPT THAT THESE EXPLANATIONS/EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLACED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INITIAL PROCEEDINGS HE HAS ADDED BACK RS. 26,45,500 BY IGNORING THE ORDER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS ORDERED BY HIM. THIS AMOUNT CONSISTED OF THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS WHICH WERE UTILIZED BY ME TO PAY FOR MY SHARE OF THE PROPERTY. THE 50% SHARE OF MY BROTHER HAS ALSO BEEN INCORRECTLY INCLUDED IN ADDITION. (A) IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT MY MOTHER MRS. MISRA BAKTOO SOLD HER JEWELLERY FOR RS.3,00,000 AND THE PROCEEDS WERE GIVEN TO ME AS A GIFT TO PAY STAMP DUTY. (B) MY FATHER MR. GHULAM AHMED BAKTO O GAVE TWO BANK DRAFTS DATED JUNE 20, 2008 NO. 764268 AND 764267 DRAWN ON J&K BANK, SRINAGAR FROM HIS ACCOUNT WITH HIMALAYAN ARTS AND SHANGRILA OF RS. 2,50,000 EACH TO ME AS A GIFT. (C) I RECEIVED FROM MY BROTHER TARIQ AHMED BAKTOO BY A BANK DRAFT DATED AUGUS T I, 2008 NO. 720781 GIFT FOR RS. 2,00,000 AND NO. 720782 FOR RS. 5,00,000 DRAWN ON J & K BANK, SOURA BRANCH, SRINAGAR TOTAL OF RS. 7,00,000. (D) I RECEIVED FROM MY BROTHER AFTAB AHMED BAKTOO BY CHEQUE O. 431684 DRAWN ON CANARA BANK, JANPATH, NEW DELHI A GIFT OF RS.3,00,000 (E) I RECEIVED AN INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM A FRIEND GHULAM QADIR BY BANK DRAFT 0.682017 DATED JULY 26,2008 DRAWN ON J & K BANK, HAZRATBAL, SRINAGAR FOR RS. 2,00,000. (F) I RECEIVED AN INTEREST FREE LOAN FROM MY FRIEND SHOWKAT AHMED DAR BY BANK DRA FT NO. 720783 DATED AUGUST 1, 2008 DRAWN ON J&K BANK, SOMA BRANCH, SRINAGAR FOR RS. 2,50,000. (G) I RECEIVED AN INTEREST FREE LOAN OF RS.2,50,000 FROM MY FRIEND MOHD. YUSUF ZARGAR BY TWO BANK DRAFTS OF RS.2,00,000 AND RS. 50,000 BY DRAFT NOS. 709565 AND 70956 6 DRAWN ON J&K BANK, LAL BAZAR BRANCH, SRINAGAR. 3 4. THAT THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS RECEIVED AND EXPLAINED BY ME AGAINST MY SHARE OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDING MY CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 3,00,000 AMOUNTED TO RS. 29,50,000 AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 29,45,500. I HAD CO NSEQUENTLY EXPLAINED MY ENTIRE CONTRIBUTIONS OF RS. 29,45,500 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE 50% SHARE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WHOM THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD REMANDED THE CASE AND THEREFORE AFTER HAVING RECEIVED A REMAND REPORT WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS, THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT WERE IGNORED. 5. THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN ADDING BACK THE ENTIRE COST OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY INCLUDING STAMP DUTY OF RS. 83,76,178 LESS BANK LOAN OF RS. 24,85,178 AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,91,000 TO MY INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 09.11.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,35,000/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER COMPUTER A SSISTED SELECTION OF SCRUTINY ( CASS ) AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ) WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SALARY FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM, INTEREST FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE ANNUAL INFORMATION RETURN (AIR) DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT JAIPUR WITH SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 78,11,178/ - AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 5,65,000/ - AND THUS THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 83,76,178/ - . IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE I NVESTMENT WAS MADE BY SEVERAL PERSONS AND A SUM OF RS. 24,85,178/ - WAS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM THE ICICI B ANK BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE, AFTER REPEATED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, COULD NOT FILE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER SUBTRACTING THE LOAN OF AMOUNT OF RS. 24,85,178/ - HELD THE BALANCE INVESTMENT OF R S . 58,91,000/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE EVIDENCE S IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PROPERTY IN REFERENCE WAS PURCHASED JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHER AND AFTER SUBTRACTING BANK LOAN , THE SOURCE OF 50% OF THE AMOUNT WHICH IS RS. 29, 45,500/ - WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNTS AMOUNTS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT B - 4 GOPAL BARI, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR JOINTLY AND EQUALLY WITH BROTHER FROM SH. S.N. BIYANI. ADD: STAMP DUTY TOTAL CONSIDERATION: LESS: LOAN FROM ICICI BANK (A) 50% OF (A ) BEING APPELLANTS SHARE FUNDS WERE RECEIVED AS FOLLOWS: (A ) OWN CONTRIBUTION VIDE CHEQUE NO. 526991 DATED 30.04.2008 DRAWN ON INDUSIND BANK, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. ( B) GIFTS FROM RELATIVES BY DRAFTS/CHEQUES IN FAVOUR OF SHRI. S.N. BIYANI . (I) IN CASH FROM SALE OF JEWELLERY BY MOTHER, MRS. MISHRA BAKTOO FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. (II)FROM FATHER, GHULAM AHMED BAKTOO BY 3,00,000 78,11,178 5,65,000 83,76,178 24,85,178 29,45,500 3,00,000 5 2 BANK DRAFTS DATED 20.06.2008 - 764268 & 764267 FROM J&K BANK, SRINAGAR A/CS WITH HIMALAYAN ARTS SHANGRILA (RS. 2,50,000 EACH) (III)FROM BROTHER, TARIQ AHMED BAKTOO BY A BANK DRAFT DATED 01.08.2008 720781 FOR RS. 2.00 LAKHS & 720782 FOR RS. 5.00 LAKHS DRAWN ON J&K BANK, SOURA BRANCH, SRINAGAR. (IV) FROM BROTHER, AFTAB AHMED BAKTOO BY CHEQUE NO. 431684 DRWAN ON CANARA BANK, JANP ATH, NEW DELHI. ( C) AS INTEREST FREE LOANS FROM FRIENDS TO BE REPAID LATEST WITHIN SIX YEARS. (I) GHULAM QADIR BY BANK DRAFT NO. 682017 DATED 26.07.2008 DRAWN ON JK BANK, HAZRATBAL, SRINAGAR. (II) SHOWKET AHMED DAR BY BANK DRAFT NO. 720783 DATED 1.8.2 008 DRAWN ON J&K BANK, SOMA BRANCH, SRINAGAR. (III) MOHD. YUSUF ZARGAR BY TWO BANK DRAFTS OF RS. 2.00 LAKHS EACH NOS. 709565 AND 709566 DRAWN ON J&K, LAL BAZAR BRANCH, SRINAGAR. 5,00,000 7,00,000 3,00,000 18,00,000 8,50,000 29,50,000 2,00,000 2,50,000 4,00,000 4. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTIES WHO PROVIDED GIFTS/LOANS WERE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND THE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE IDENTITY WERE PROVIDED TO THE CIT(A). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ALL THE GIFTS/LOANS WERE BY WAY OF BANK DRAFTS DIRECTLY IN THE NAME OF SELLER SH. S.N. BIYAN I WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS RELATING TO GIFT RECEIVED (A) OF RS. 3,00,000/ - FROM HIS MOTHER 6 RECEIVED IN CASH AND (B) RS. 3,00,000/ - FROM SH. AFTAB AHMED BAKTOO WHO GAVE A CHEQUE TO THE SELLER IN HIS NAME. THE SOURCE S OF ALL THE BANK DRAFTS PREPARED TO MAKE GIFTS/L OANS WERE DEBITED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS EXCEPT ONE PERSON, MOHD. YUSUF ZARGAR IN WHOSE CASE OUT OF THE 4,00,000/ - , ONLY 2,00,000/ - WERE APPEARING IN BANK STATEMENT FOR BALANCE, N O BANK STATEMENT WAS AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM ALL THE PERSONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND REQUESTED TO ACCEPT THE SAME AS ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT I N THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED ONE PERSON OUT OF THE PERSONS WHO PROVIDED GIFTS AND ONE PERSON OUT OF THE PERSONS WHO PROVIDED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE , IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFF ICER GAVE NO ADVERSE COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE GIFTS AND LOANS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE FIN DINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . 6. ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 58,91,000/ - FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS ARE HEARD TO GETHER. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 69 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF HALF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE, ALL THE EVIDENCES RELATED TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WERE FILED BY 7 THE ASSESS EE AND WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT , DESPITE THAT , THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCES AND SHE SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCES. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO REFERRED TO REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED AT PAGE NO. 14 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT SOURCE OF GIFTS AND LOANS WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS PARAMETERS OF THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS CONCERNED, AND THUS THE SAME ME HELD AS EXPLAINED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL R EPRESENTATIVE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY BY THE PARTIES T O THE SELLER AND IN A SALE DEED, SHARE OF THE DIFFERENT PARTIES WAS NOT MENTIONED AND THE LOAN SANCTIONED LETTER IS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THAT SHE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES . WE ALSO FIND THAT THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT FILED BY THE ASSES SEE WERE FORWARD ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, BUT F ROM THE REMAND REPORT FILED AT PAGE NO. 14 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THOSE DOCUMENTS BUT HE HAS 8 ALSO NOT GIVEN H IS CATEGORICAL FINDINGS REGARDING ACCEPTABILITY OR NON - ACCEPTABILITY OF THE SOURCE OF IN VESTMENT FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THAT FEW DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO THE REMAND REPORT A S MENTIONED IN PARA 7 OF HER ORDER , WERE NOT FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS ALSO . WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 2 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF MOHD. YUSUF ZARGAR WAS NOT MADE AVAILA BLE TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE LOAN SANCTION LETTER FROM THE ICICI BAND STANDS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE SHARE OF THE PARTIES IS NOT SPECIFIED IN THE SALE DEED AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT MADE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS PASSED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECT HIM TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. N EEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 11. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 3258/DEL.2015, AY: 2009 - 10 12. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING SUNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF COMLETING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, BUT N O REPLY WAS FILED BY THE 9 ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED. AGAIN A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISS UED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09.05.2012 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. HOWEVE R, NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BACK WITH THE REMARK BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT THAT THE PARTY LEFT THE ADDRESS , THOUGH ALL OTHER NOTICES WERE DULY SERVED ON THE SAID ADDRESS THROUGH SPEED POST. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SENT ANOTHER NOTICE THROUGH NOTICE SERVER AND INSPECTOR OF THE OFFICE AND THE NOTICE WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE. AS NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED AND THE PENALTY BEING BARRED BY LI MITATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT PERTAINING TO THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY EXPLAINED AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACE WAS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE NEITHER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FILING OF ANY INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF INCOME WAS PROVED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED . AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL. 13. GROUND S NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL ARE IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN ITA NO. 3257/DEL/2015, AY: 2009 - 10 , THUS, THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJU DICATE AGAIN IN THIS APPEAL. 10 14. GROUND NO. 6 IS IN RESPECT OF THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,99,827/ - . T HE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIATION OF PENALTY IS VAGUE AND NO PARTICULAR CHARG E EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN MENTIONED BY EITHER AO OR THE CIT(A) . OUR ATTENTIO N WAS DRAWN TOWARDS PARAGRAPH 1.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). HE FURTHER RELIED O N THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE KARNATKA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 35 ITR 514. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL. WE FIND THAT THE QUANTUM ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA NO. 3257/DEL/2015, AY: 2009 - 10 FOR DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH . THEREFORE, NOW, THE ISSUE OF PENALTY LEVIED OF RS. 19,99,827/ - UN DER 271 ( 1 ) OF THE ACT DOES NOT SURVIVE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT , THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 6 T H FEBRUARY , 2016 . S D / - S D / - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ( O.P. KANT ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2 6 T H FEBRUARY , 2016 . RK/ - COPY FORWARDED TO: 11 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI