CHETAN N SHAH, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CEN CIR 22, MUMBAI

ITA 328/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8005 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIT KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: CHETAN A KARIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 12A; 27; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND D. KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A. NO.328/M/2012 ( AY: 2004 - 2005) ./I.T.A. NO.329/M/2012 ( AY: 2007 - 2008) SHRI CHETAN N SHAH, FLAT NO.4, 4 TH FLR, WYOMING CHS LTD, 12A LITTLE GIBBS ROAD, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI - 400 006. / VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 22 & 30, MUMBAI. ./ PAN : A AMPS 4798 R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A. NO.263/M/2012 ( AY: 2007 - 2008) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 22 & 30, MUMBAI. / VS. SHRI CHETAN N SHAH, FLAT NO.4, 4 TH FLR, WYOMING CHS LTD, 12A LITTLE GIBBS ROAD, MALABAR HILL, MUMBAI - 400 006. ./ PAN : AAMPS 4798 R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHETAN A KARIA / REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMIT KUMAR / DATE OF HEARING : 15 .7.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8.8 .2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THERE ARE THREE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION INVOLVING AYS 2004 - 05 AND 2007 - 08. OUT OF THREE APPEALS, THERE ARE CROSS APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 20 0 8 AND ITA NO.328/M/2012 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE CONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED, HEARD COMBINEDLY AND BEING ADJUDICATED IN THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. APPEAL WISE AND GROUND W ISE ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS. 2 2. FIRSTLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL ITA NO.328/M/2012, WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.1.2012 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 39, MUMBAI DATED 4.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 2005. IN THI S APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1,00,000/ - . 2. THE LD CIT (A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE G IVEN FINDING AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL, VOID IN LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LD CIT (A) FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT ADHOC AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/ - OFFERED TO COVER UP ANY DISCREPANCY IN JEWELRY FOUND, IS NOT AN INCOME AT ALL AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF CONCEALING THE INCOME, PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. 4. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED INCOME, PARTI CULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME LEADING TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO A) OFFERING OF N ADHOC INCOME OF RS. 1,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LIKELY ERRORS OR OMISSION IN JEWELRY FOUND , W ITHOUT HAVING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR FINDING OF CONCEALMENT BY THE AO. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CA SES PERTAINING TO ASHAPURA MINECHEM GROUP OF CASES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PERSONS COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153 A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF R S. 54,28,210/ - . IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6,00,000/ - U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS TWO COMPONENTS I.E,. (I) RS. 5 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF ERRORS / OMISSIONS / SHORT WITHDRAWALS AND (II) RS. 1,00, 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY OF JEWELLERY FOUND . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 54,28,210/ - . AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION AL INCOME DETECTED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH ACTION ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS ISSUED ON 24.6.2010 . AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION OF RS. 5 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY WITH REGARD TO RS. 1 LAKH. PARAS 7.3 TO 7.4 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY LEVIED WITH REGARD TO RS. 1 LAKH, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, SHRI CHETAN A KARIA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION OF LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE AD - HOC THE AMOUNT OFFERED AS THE SAME WAS NOT EMANATING FROM ANY INCREMENTING OR SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OBJECT OF OFFERING THIS INCOME WAS TO COVER UP ANY ERRORS, OMISSIONS OR SHORT WITHDRAWALS OR LIKELY DISCREPANCIES IN JEWELLERY, IF ANY. LD COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AD - HOC OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE A ND AVOID LITIGATION THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONCLUDED AS THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN GENERAL AND PARA 7.4 IN PARTICULAR, WE FIND THE SAME IS RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 7.4. AS FAR AS THE DISCLOSURE MADE FOR RS. 1 LAKH IS CONC ERNED, THE DISCLOSURE IS MADE TOWARDS THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY MADE IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE, THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1 LAKH IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE FOR THIS DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1 LAKHS. THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THIS CONCEALED INCOME OF RS. 1 LAKHS IS SUSTAINED. 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE OR DEBATE ON THE FACT OF NON - DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE JEWELLERY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 LAKH EACH IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE MANNER OF EARNING OF SUCH RELATED INCOME IS NOT EXPLAINED EVEN BEFORE US. MORE DISCLO SURE DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY FROM PENAL PROVISIONS. THEREFORE , WE FIND THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED ON RS.1 LAKHS ON 4 ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, IN OUR VIEW THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. CROSS APPEALS F OR THE AY 2007 - 2008 ITA NO.329/M/2012 (AY 2007 - 2008) (BY ASSESSEE) 10. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 13.1.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 39, MUMBAI DATED 4.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1,00,000/ - . 2. THE LD CIT (A) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN FINDING AS TO WHETHER APPELLANT HAD CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN ABSENCE OF SUCH FINDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS BAD, ILLEGAL, VOID IN LAW AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LD CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH AT AD - HOC AMOUNT OF RS. 9 ,00,000/ - OFFERED TO COVER UP ANY DISCREPANCY IN JEWELRY FOUND, IS NOT AN INCOME AT ALL AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF CONCEALING THE INCOME, PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. 4. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED INCOME, PARTICULAR OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME LEADING TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO A) OFF ERING OF N AD - HOC INCOME OF RS. 9 ,00,000/ - ON AC COUNT OF LIKELY ERRORS OR OMISSION IN JEWELRY FOUND , W ITHOUT HAVING ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE OR FINDING OF CONCEALMENT BY THE AO. 11. TH E ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EXACTLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NO.328/M/2012 FOR THE AY 2004 - 05. THEREFORE, THE ADJUDICATION GIVEN BY US IN THE SAID APPEAL SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE INSTANT APPEAL TOO. AS SUCH, REGARDING THE PENALTY MADE U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN JEWELLERY FOUND WITH REGARD TO THE A DDITION OF RS.9 LAKHS, THE CIT (A) HAS GIVEN THE FINDING SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CIT (A)S FINDING IN THE AY 2004 - 05. 12. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS. 1 LAKH IN CONNECTION WITH AY 2004 - 05 IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER WH ILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL 5 ITA NO.328/M/2012. CONSIDERING THE SAME , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.263/M/2012 (AY 2007 - 2008) (BY REVENUE) 14. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ON 11.1.2012 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 39, MUMBAI DATED 4.10.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 2008. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD CIT (A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS. 3,40,000/ - WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE ADDITIONAL INCOME NOT VOLUNTARILY BUT ONLY AFTER SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 15. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT ACTIVITY OF BUYING AND SELLING OF SHARES AND SECURITIES. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASES PERTAINING TO ASHAPURA MINECHEM GROUP OF CASES AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PERSONS COVERED IN THE SAID SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153 A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 84,89,646/ - . IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 19 ,00,000/ - U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME HA S TWO COMPONENTS I.E,. (I) RS. 10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF ERRORS / OMISSIONS / SHORT WITHDRAWALS AND (II) RS. 9 ,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY OF JEWELLERY FOUND. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) READ WITH S ECTION 153A OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 84,89,650/ - . AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DETECTED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH ACTION ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY ORDER WAS ISSUED ON 24.6.20 10. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 16. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) WITH REGARD T O ADDI TION OF RS. 10 LAKHS . PARAS 7.3 TO 7.3.2 OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER ARE RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED WITH REGARD TO 6 RS. 1 0 LAKH, REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAI SING THE ABOVE MENTION ED GROUND . 17. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, SHRI CHETAN A KARIA, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO . 19. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIT (A)S ORDER IN GENERAL AND PARA S 7.3 TO 7.3.2 IN PARTICUL AR, WE FIND THE SAME ARE RELE VANT IN THIS REGARD WHICH READ AS UNDER: 7 . 3 FR O M TH E A B OVE STATEMENTS RECORDED IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPE L LANT'S HAVE D I SC L OS E D RS. 20 , 00 , 0 0 , 0 00/ - U/S . 132(4) ON ADHOC BASIS ON 1L . 03 . 2008 . THE AP P ELLANT H A S H O N O UR E D TH E DECLARATION MADE AND GIVEN THE BREAK UP FOR DISCLOSURE OF RS. 20 C R O R E I N TH E V ARIOUS STATEMENTS . FROM THESE STATEMENTS IT IS SEE N TH A T PA R T O F DIS C L O S UR E MAD E WAS FOR UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS , UNACCOUNTED CA SH A ND U N ACCO UN T E D J E WE LL E R Y AND UNACCOUNTED INCOME REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DO C UMENTS . APA RT FR O M T H AT CE R T AIN AMOUNTS WERE ALSO DISCLOSED TO COVER UP ANY D I SC R E P A N CY , DIS A LL O W A N CES, ET C. IN THIS YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAS DISCLOSED RS. 10 LA K HS ( OUT O F RS . 1 9 L A KHS ADM I TTED IN THE RETURN) TOWARDS ANY DISCREPANCY AND D I SA L L O W A N C ES E TC . I T IS PURELY ON ADHOC BASIS AND IT IS STATED THAT THE DISCLOSURE I S M A D E T O PUR C H ASE P EA CE OF MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE D IS C L O SU R E M A DE O F RS.10 LAKHS IS NOT REPRESENTING ANY ASSETS AND I T IS ALSO NOT C A P IT A L I ZE D IN T H E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD E IT H E R IN T H E ASSE S S MENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALT Y ORDER OR I N THE R E MAND P R OCEE DIN G S TO RS. 1 0 L AK H S M A D E B Y THE APPELLANT . 7.3. 1 NO D O UBT T H E A PP E LL A NT HAS ADMITTED RS. 10 LAKH S I N TH E R ETU RN FILED U/S 153A OF TH E I . T . A C T . BU T AT THE SAME TIME THE APPELLANT H A S E X PL A IN E D THE REASONS FOR I N C L UDIN G T HIS RS. 1 0 L A KHS IN THE RETURN OF I N CO M E F I L E D U/ S .15 3 A OF THE I . T . A C T . T H E A PP E LL A NT H AS DI S C LOSED RS. 20 CRORE FOR TH E ASSES S EE E N T IR E G ROUP. OUT OF RS. 2 0 C R O R E, T H E A PP E LL A NT H A S DISCLOSED CERTAIN AMOUNTS WHICH A R E RE FLECTED AS UNACCOUNTED ASSETS A ND E N TR I ES R E FL EC TIN G TH E CO NC EA L E D IN CO M E . BUT T H IS OFFER OF RS. 1 0 LAKHS I S NOT R E P RE SE N TI N G A N Y UNDI SC L O SED ASSE T S O R T H IS IN CO M E IS RE FL ECTE D THROUGH ANY ENTRY IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. TH E A PP E LL A NT H AS D ISC L OS E D T H I S A M O UNT ONLY TO KEEP THE COMMITMENT OF DI SCLOSURE OF RS. 20 CRS AS A WHO LE AND ALSO TO AVOID LITIGATION ETC. NOTHING WAS FOUND BY THE AO AGAINST THIS EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THIS OFFER OF RS. 10 LAKHS IS BONAFIDE AND GENUINE. THERE I S NO SEIZED MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS REPRESENT UNDISCLOSED / CONCEALED INCOME. FURTHER, EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS ALSO NOT ATTRACTED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR T H IS AS SESS MEN T YEA R EARL I ER . MA I N PROVISIONS OF SECT I ON 271(1)(C) IS A L SO NOT A TT R AC T E D DU E TO THE F AC T THA T T HERE WAS NO MATERIAL/EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE A SSE SS E E H A S C O NCEALED P A RT IC U L ARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED I NACCURA T E PAR T ICULARS O F INCOME WITH REGARD TO T H IS A MOUNT OF RS. 10 LAK H S OFFERED B Y TH E A PPEL L ANT FOR A SS ESSMENT . 7 7 . 3 . 2 IN VI E W OF THIS I HOLD THAT PENALTY U / S . 271(1 )( C ) CANNO T BE LEVIE D WIT H REGARD TO THI S ADD I T ION O F RS. 10 LAKHS. T HE A . O . I S D I RE CT ED TO DE LETE T HE PENALTY L EVIED U / S. 27 1( 1) ( C) W ITH R EG A RD TO AD D ITI ON OF RS. 1 0 LAKH S. 20. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WHILE DELETING THE PENALTY WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR AN Y INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH AUGUST , 2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 8/8 /2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI