Smt.Nayanaben H Kotecha, Ahmedabad V. The Jt.Commisoner Of Income TAX, Rg-6, Ahmedabad

ITA 3383/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6226 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 143(3); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAYANABEN H KOTECHA A/4 FLORENCY RESIDENCY, SCIENCE CITY ROAD, SOLA, AHMEDABAD - 380060 PAN: AEJPK0786L (APPELLANT) VS THE JCIT, RANGE - 6, A - 510, PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PR ASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI S.N. DIVETIA , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07 - 12 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 - 01 - 2 018 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 4 , AHM EDABAD DATED 05 - 11 - 2015 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS: - I T A NO . 3383 / A HD/20 15 A SSESS M ENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 2 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 DATED 05.11.2015 BY CIT(A) - 4, ABAD CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 39,50,000 IMPOSED U/S.271D BY JT CIT RANGE - 6,A'BAD FOR ALLEGED VIOLATION OF SEC 269SS OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PR INCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT AND PASSING A NON - SPEAKING AND CRYPTIC ORDER. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SEC 269SS BY ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 39.50 LACS FROM SIX DIFFERENT PARTIES. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THERE WAS VIOLATION OF SEC 269SS BY ACCEPTING THE AMOUNTS AGGREGATING TO RS. 39.50 LACS FROM SIX DIFFERENT PARTIES. 3.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ANY URGE NT BUSINESS NEEDS IN ACCEPTING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS IN CASH FOR REQUIREMENTS OF THE RELATIVES WAS NOT A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING ALLEGED AMOUNTS IN CASH. 3.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE ID.CIT(A) HAS GR IEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT URGENT BUSINESS NEEDS IN ACCEPTING THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS IN CASH FOR REQUIREMENTS OF RELATIVES WAS NOT SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR ACCEPTING ALLEGED AMOUNTS IN CASH. 4.1 THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THOUGH THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS WERE FOUND TO BE GENUINE AND ACCEPTED AS BONAFIDE DURING ASST. PROCEEDINGS; THE TRANSACTIONS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EVASION OF TAX OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS STATED IN MEMO EXPLAINING THE PROVISION BY FINANCE BILL 1984, YET THE PROVI SION OF SEC 269SS AND 271D WERE ATTRACTED. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT WERE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS WITHOUT DISCUSSING OR NARRATING ANYTHING ABOUT IT. IT IS THEREF ORE PRAYED THAT THE PENALT Y OF RS . 39.50 LACS IMPOSED BY THE AO AND CONFIRM BY CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 3. ALL THESE GROUND S OF APPEAL ARE INTERCONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE DECIDED TOGETHER AS UNDER. 4. IN THIS CASE, RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF RS. 1 , 51 , 200/ - WAS FILED ON 30 TH JULY, 2011. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2 ) OF THE ACT ON 2 ND AUGUST, 2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 1 9 TH FEB, 2014 AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 , 52 , 520/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED THE CASE TO THE JOINT CIT FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S. 271D OF INCOME TAX ACT FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN IN CASH. IT IS NOTICED I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 3 THAT ASSESSEE HA S OBTAINED CASH LOAN OF RS. 39,50,0 00/ - FROM THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: - SR. NO. NAME OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM CASH RECEIVED DATE TOTAL AMOUNT 1 SHRI SUBHARAJSINH JADEJA 04.03.2011 7 , 00000 2 SHRI MERAMANBHAI GOJIYA 04.03.2011 8 , 50 , 000 3 SHRI RAMA LAKHA VARO TARIA 05.03.2011 3 , 00000 4 SHRI FIROJBHAI POPATIA 17.03.2011 5 , 50 , 000 5 SHRI HATHI MANSUKHLAL 20.03.2011 3 , 50 , 000 6 SHRI ANIRUDHASINH JADEJA 26.03.2011 1 , 20 , 0000 TOTAL 39 , 50 , 000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF T HE AFORESAID L OAN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE JOINT CIT HAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24 TH MARCH, 2014 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF LOAN IN CASH BY STATING AS UNDER: - (I) THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN WERE NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNT S . (II) THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE LOAN S WERE GIVEN BY UTILIZING THE FUND S RECEIVED IN SHAPE OF CASH LOAN S WERE IN URGENT NEEDS OF FUNDS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOA NS WERE TAKEN IN CASH AS THERE WAS URGENT REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS FOR M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES WHOSE PROPRIETOR IS SHRI JIGNESH RASIKLAL KOTECHA WHO HAPPENS TO BE HER NEPHEW. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT J.K. ENTERPRISES IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF COTTON AND SHRI JIGNESH RASIKLAL KOTECHA WAS IN URGENT REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS FOR PURCHASE OF COTTONS FROM THE FARMERS. THE I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 4 ASSESSE HAS FURNISHED THE COP IES OF HER ACCOUNTS IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES AND SHRI JIGNESH RASIKLAL KOTECHA . IT WAS FURTHER STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE REPAYMENT OF LOAN ON 14 TH MARCH, 2011 TO M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10 LACS AND ALSO GIVEN LOAN OF RS. 25 LACS TO M/S M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES ON 30 TH MARCH, 2011. SHE HAS ALSO MADE REPAYMENT OF RS. 4,50,000/ - ON 30 TH MARCH, TOWARDS LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI RASIKLAL KOTECHA. THE JOINT CIT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE CAUSE THAT COMPELLED HER TO ACCEPT LOAN OTHERWISE THEN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/DRAFT. THEREF ORE, HE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 39,50,000/ - U/S. 271D OF THE ACT. 5 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY STATING THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF LOAN FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE RELATIVES IS NOT GENUINE REASON AND THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS NO URGENT REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS. LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE RELATIVES WHO HAD REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS ARE REGULAR ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEY ARE IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS FOR MANY YEARS AND FULLY AWARE ABOUT THE CASH REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE GOODS. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK CONTAININ G WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), JCIT ALONG WITH COPIES OF NUMBER OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND COP IES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF PARTIES . THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 5 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FOUND LOAN TO BE GENUINE A N D ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE TO THE FACT THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE PARTIES WHO HAVE GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENTS U/S. 131(1) O F THE AC T . HE FURT HER CONTENDED THAT THE LENDERS HAVE GIVEN ALL DETAILS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 13 1(1) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE FINDINGS AND THERE IS NO QUESTION WHICH WAS NO T REPLIED BY THE LOAN PROVID ING PARTIES AND N O DISSATISFACTION HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS URGENT REQUIREMENT OF FUNDS TO THE PARTIES WHO WERE CLOSE RELATIVES OF T H E ASSESSEE BECAUSE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OF COT TON FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT USED T O BE MADE IN CASH. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S : - I. DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ITO V. SHRI LUHAR BHUPENDRA SINGH HAKAMSINGH VIDE ITA NO. 2016/AH D/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 DATED 30/11/2015 II DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT AHD. VS. LUHAR BUPENDRA SINGH HAKAMSINGH VIDE TAX APPEAL NO. 537 OF 2016 DATED 04/07/2016 III CIT VS. DIMPLE YADAV 93 CCH 207 (ALL) IV CIT VS. BALAJI TRADERS 303 ITR 312 (MAD) I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 6 V CIT VS. RASHI INJECTION MOULDERS 368 ITR 527 (MAD) VI CIT VS. DECCAN DESIGNS (INDIA) P. LTD. 347 ITR 580 (MAD) VII DCIT RUPEN DAS 136 TTJ 80 (KOL) 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER S OF L OWER AUTHORITIES A N D ALSO P LACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF (2014)52TAXMAN.COM 424 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULLY. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT T HE PERSONS FROM WHO M LOAN S WERE ACCEPTED IN CASH WERE NOT HAVING ANY BANK ACCOUNTS AND T HE RELATIVES TO WHOM THE LOANS WERE GIVEN BY UTILIZING THE FUNDS RECEIVED IN SHAPE OF CASH LOANS WERE IN URGENT NEEDS OF FUNDS. THE LOANS IN CASH WERE ACCEPTED FROM SIX DIFFERENT PARTIES WHO WE RE AGRICULTURISTS AND HER RELATIVES. SHE HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THAT URGENT CASH WAS REQUIRED IN BUSINESS BY HER BROTHERS IN LAW AND HER NEPHEW WHO WAS PROPRIETOR OF M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES , THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TAKEN IN CASH . M/S. J.K. ENTERPRISES WAS IN T HE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN KAPAS ( BY PURCHASING FROM FARMER AND SALE TO GINNING MILS ) AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.25 WAS WITHDRAWN ON 18TH MARCH 2011 FOR PAYMENT TO 4 DIFFERENT PARTIES. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 11,94 , 179/ - WAS NOT EN OUGH CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND VOLUME OF BUSINESS B ECAUSE THE DEAL ER S IN COTTON ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP HUGE BALANCE ON HAN D DURING THE SE ASON SO AS TO MEET THE PAYMENT FOR THE PURCHASE MADE FROM THE FARMERS. THE LENDERS IN THEIR STATEMENT BE F ORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 7 HAD STATED THAT THEY WERE NOT HAVING BANK ACCOUNT S . THESE FACTS D EMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE LENDERS DURING T HE C O URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT DISP ROV ED THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT W AS BORROWED WERE NOT HAVING BANK A/C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE STA T E M ENT S OF LENDERS U/S. 131 OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE ADVANCED MON EY TO T H E ASSESSEE AN D HAD ALSO EXPLAINED THEIR SOURCE OF IN COME . IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LAWN TRANSACTION AND HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE FINDING S. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LOAN WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESS EE HAVE ADMITT ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THEIR STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED BACK THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF LOAN TO THEM. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THESE FACTS AND NEITHER CONTROVERT ED THESE FACTS WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENTS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT NOR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY HIM. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE FINDINGS. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO REQUIRE HUGE CASH AND BANK BALANCE DURING SE ASON FOR PURCHASING OF COTTON FOR WHICH DIRECT PAYMENT S ARE MADE TO THE FARMERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PREPARED A FUND - FLOW CHART AND THE SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY EACH OF THE PARTIES WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY COPY OF BANK STATEMENT, LEDGER ACCOUNT, CASH I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 8 BOOK AND BANK BOOK ETC . WE OBSERVED THAT WHATEVER QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE LENDERS , TH EY HAVE EXPLAINED THE SA M E IN THEIR ANSWER S TO T H E ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT APPEAR S FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RAISED DOUBT ABOUT THE VERACITY O F THEIR RESPONSES AND ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT MADE ANY QUERY WHICH REMAINED UN - RESPONDED OR PROVED ADVERSELY. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S AS STATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER. WE OBSERVE THAT IT IS DEMONSTRATED FROM THE FUND FLOW STATEMENT T HAT MAJOR PART OF THE FUNDS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER AFORESAID RELATIVES WERE NOT TOWARDS REPAY MENT OF EXISTING LOAN S. THEREFORE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR. SIMILAR TO THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENT RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE , WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE EXISTED BECAUSE O F WHICH SHE COMPELLED TO OBTAIN CASH LOAN AS THERE WAS URGENT REQUIREMENT OF FU NDS TO THE PARTIES WHO WERE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THEY WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE OF COTTON FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT USED TO BE MADE IN CASH. IN THIS CONNECTION WE OBSERVE THAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND VOLUM E OF BUSINESS THE SE DEALERS IN COTTON ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP HUGE BALANCE ON HAND DURING THE SEASON SO AS TO MEET THE PAYMENT FOR THE PUR CHASE MADE FROM THE FARMERS. WE OBSERVE IT IS DEMONSTRATED FROM THE FACTS THAT THE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE M /S J. K. ENTE RPRISES HAD MADE PAYMENT OF A BOUT 27 LACS TO 4 DIFFERENT I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 9 PAR T I ES ON 30/03/2011 AFTER RECEIVING AFORESAID PAYMENT OF RS. 25 LACS FROM THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE ON 30 - 03 - 2011. WE HAVE ALSO SEE N FROM THE COPY OF LEDGER A/C OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. J .K. ENTERPRISES AS PER PAGE NO. 18 THAT THE AMOUNT OF 25 LACS W AS REPAID BACK TO THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE ON 04 - 04 - 2011. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON THE RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THA T SHE WAS COMPELLED TO TAKE CASH LOAN TO MATERIALIZE THE BUSINESS EXIGENCY OF THE CLOSE RELATED AS ELABORATED IN THIS ORDER WHICH LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION OF EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE AND BONA - FIDE BELIEF BY THE ASSESSEE THUS PROVISION OF SECTION 273B WAS APPLICABLE . ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HIS FINDINGS OF SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 24 - 01 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 24 /01/2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. I.T.A NO. 3383 /AHD/20 15 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO NAYANABEN H . KOTECHA VS. JCIT 10 BY ORDER/ , / ,