1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI C BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL M EMBER ITA NO. 3288/DEL/2016 [A.Y 2008-09] THE INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. M/S MEHTA CHARITABLE P RAJANALYA WARD 1(4) TRUST, 104, TILAK BAZAR CHOWK NEW DELHI DELHI PAN: AAAFM 2171 L (APPLICANT) ( RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K. SAMPA TH, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.N. MEENA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.12.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12.2019 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] - 36 NEW DELHI DATED 29.03.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 2. THE SOLITARY OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT']. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 32 81 TO 3287/DEL/2016 HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 4. THE LD. DR COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISHING DE CISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH [SUPRA]. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH READ AS UNDER: 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 11 HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE ACT ITSELF CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE ARE OF THE 3 CONFIRMED VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) DO NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE. IN THAT VIE W OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF T HE DEPARTMENT. 14. IN ALL OTHER APPEALS I.E. ITA NO. 3282-3287/DEL /2016, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WHERE INVOLVED IN ITA NO. 32 81.DEL.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 WHICH HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER, THERE FORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN THEREIN SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . 15. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT A RE DISMISSED. 6. ON FINDING PARITY OF FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF REV ENUE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 3288/DEL/2016 IS DISMISSED THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12. 2019. SD/- SD/- [ SUCHITRA KAMBLE ] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: DECEMBER, 2019 VL/ 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS /PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P S/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER