KAUSHAL R. VYAS, MUMBAI V. ITO, WARD-3(1), KALYAN, MUMBAI

ITA 3470/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9367 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASGHAR ZAIN
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI , ,, , , ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, ,, , $ $ $ $ BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO. 3470/MUM./2010 ( & ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200506 ) SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS PROP. M/S. NARESH TRADING CO. PLOT NO.X-17/6, AARTI COMMERCIAL COMPLEX MIDC, MAMATA HOSPITAL ROAD, DOMBIVLI (EAST)-421203. DIST- THANE .. )* / APPELLANT & V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (1) KALYAN RANI MANSION, MURBAD ROAD, KALYAN (W) .... +,)* / RESPONDENT ) . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER ABQPV7954F & '.! / 0 / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI.SANJAY PARIKH / 0 / REVENUE BY : SHRI ASGHAR ZAIN & / !1 / DATE OF HEARING 24.02.2015 ' 2( / !1 / DATE OF ORDER 13.3.2015 ' ' ' ' / ORDER ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '#, ,, , 3 3 3 3 / PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28 TH JANUARY 2010, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 2 (APPEALS)I, MUMBAI, IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINLY AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS.6,77,770/- U/S.271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY APPEARING IN T HE BALANCE SHEET AS AMOUNT PAYABLE TO M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO (L & T). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S.NARESH TRADING COMPANY, CARRY ING ON THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN ELECTRICAL, HARDWARE AND INDU STRIAL GOODS. HE IS MAINLY DISTRIBUTOR OF M/S. LARSEN & TOUBRO LTD.(L & T LTD). DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ON THE PERUSAL O F THE BALANCE SHEET, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDR Y CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.47,87,478/-. SINCE THE SUNDRY CREDITOR WAS MAINLY L & T, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISHED THE COP Y OF ASSESSEES ACCOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF L & T WITH THE BA LANCE RECEIVABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2005. L & T LTD. HAS VIDE LETTER DATED 17.9.2007 FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT AS ON 31.3.2005, THE BALANC E RECOVERABLE FROM THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.7,15,093/-, WHEREAS THE ASSE SSEE HAS SHOWN LIABILITY OF RS.35,46,030/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT HE HAS BEEN ONE OF THE OLDEST DISTRIBUTORS OF L & T AND THE DIFF ERENCE GENERALLY SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 3 OCCURS DUE TO THE FACT THAT COMPANY OFFERS DIFFERENT T YPE OF DISCOUNTS LIKE CASH DISCOUNT, TURNOVER DISCOUNT ETC. FOR WHIC H THEY DID NOT ISSUE ANY DEBIT/CREDIT NOTES TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THEY WERE IN FORMING HIM BEFORE THE CLOSURE OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD. IT WAS F URTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF L & T LTD. HAD OCCURRED DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. AS MENTION ABOVE L & T IS VERY BIG COMPANY THEY ARE TAKING BLANK DATED CHEQUES FROM US IN ADVANCE AND THEY ARE DEPOS ITING DIRECTLY TO THERE ACCOUNT AGAINST THE MATERIAL DELIVERED. IN THE END MARCH 2005 THEY HAVE DEPOSITED A CHEQUE OF RS.4.50 LACS (CH.NO.037670) AND THAT CHEQUE WAS CLEARED IN OUR BANK ACCOUNT ON 4TH APRIL 2005, HENCE WE HAVE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ON 4TH APRIL 2005. (COPY OF BANK STATEMENT ENCLOSED). 2. M/S. LARSEN & TURBO LTD. HAD REVERSED RS.1074219.55 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THEIR BOOKS. HOWEVER THE SAME WAS N OT REVERSED IN OUR BOOKS IN THE SAME ACCOUNTING YEAR 2004-05. THE REASON BEI NG THAT THE PURCHASES ARE ACCOUNTED IN OUR BOOKS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS R ECEIVED FROM LARSEN AND TURBO AT THE END OF THE MONTH. THERE IS NO RECONCIL IATION MADE BETWEEN THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF MATERIAL AND THE MONTHLY BILL RAI SED BY LARSEN AND TURBO DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A. THE MATERIAL IN SOME CASES IS DIRECTLY DISPATCHE D TO THE CONSUMERS DIRECTLY. B. THE PERSON IN CHARGE OF ACCOUNTING WAS CHANGING DUE TO GOOD OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE OUTSIDE. HOWEVER WE HAVE REVERSED RS.10,74,219.55 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN OUR BOOKS, INVOICE WISE DETAILS OF WHICH IS ENCL OSED FOR YOUR REFERENCE. 3. M/S. LARSEN AND TURBO HAS GIVEN DISCOUNT OF RS.1 3,06,713.60 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06M THE DETAILS OF WHICH COME TO OUR NOTICE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHILE RECONCILING THE ACCOU NTS WITH LARSEN AND TURBO. WE HAVE PASSED THE DISCOUNT OF RS.1069.287.7 0 DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE PARTY WISE DETAILS OF WHICH IS GI VEN FOR YOUR REFERENCE. WE HAVE RECONCILED OUR STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT WITH LA RSEN & TURBO AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2006. AND AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2006 OUR BALANCE AND BALANCE AS PER LARSEN & TURBO STATEMENT IS FULLY MATCHING AND THERE IS NO T A SINGLE PAISA DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US. SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 4 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 19.12.2007 FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF DISCOUNTS PARTYWISE, WHICH AGGREGATE D TO RS.10,69,286/- (THESE DETAILS ARE APPEARING AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITUR E WITH REGARD TO DISCOUNT RECEIVED FROM L & T LTD., IN THE FOLLOWING MA NNER; IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TH E FOLLOWING INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN , WITH RESPECT TO THE DISCOUNTS RECEIVED FROM LARSEN AND TURBO LTD. (I) TOTAL DISCOUNT PASSED ON BY LARSEN & TURBO LTD DURING F.Y.2004-05 RS.13,06,713.60. (II) DISCOUNT PASSED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS CUST OMERS DURING THE F.Y.2005-06 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COPIES OF CREDIT NOTES AND LEDGER ACCOUNT COPIES RS.3,53,943/-. (III) NO DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PASS ING ON OF DISCOUNT ALTHOUGH CLAIMED TO BE PASSED ON RS.7,15,343/- TO JAMKHED EL ECTRICALS & ELECTRONICS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.07 ST ATED THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH DETAILS IN RESPECT OF DISCOUNT OF RS.7,15,3 43/- PASSED ON, PRESENTLY. (IV) DISCOUNT RECEIVED FROM LARSEN AND TURBO IN THE FORM OF CREDIT NOTES AND NOT PASSED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS CUSTOMERS RS.2 ,37,426/-. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR CREDIT NOTES RECEIVE D AMOUNTING TO RS.2,37,426/- EITHER IN F.Y.04-05 AND F.Y.05-06, THERE BY HIS PURCHASES ARE OVERSTATED TO THIS EXTENT DURING F.Y.2004-05 RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSEE HAD VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.07 ABOVE STATE D THAT THEY HAVE PASSED ON DISCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.5,91,370/- HOWEVER ONLY PR OOF AS DISCUSSED ABOVE OF RS.3.53,9431- HAS BEEN FURNISHED. THUS THE DIFFEREN CE OF RS.2,37,426 IS ADDED. IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE L & T LTD., DURING THE YEAR HAS REVERSED THE SALE OF RS.10,74,22 0/- WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REVERSED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DUE TO NO INFORMATION BY THE COMPANY AND THE SAME WAS REVERSED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. ALL THE DETAILS AND RECONCILIATION HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BY T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 5 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THE A SSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT, M/S. L & T LTD. HAS REVERSED THE SALES RET URN IN THEIR BOOKS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FA ILED TO RECORD THE SAME IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR, WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IS NOT RECONCILABLE. HE FURTHER GOES TO OBSERVE THAT M/S. L & T WILL NOT IN THEIR OWN ACCOUNT CREDIT FOR SALES RETURN IN THEIR ACCOUNT, UNLESS DEBIT NOTES OR CONFIRMATION OF PURCHASE RETURN HAS BEEN INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE HE LD THAT THE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.19,97,673/- HAS BEEN OV ERSTATED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT PREFER ANY FIRST APPEAL. 5. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C), THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS OF M/ S. L & T LTD WHICH WAS BY A LARGE IN THE SAME MANNER AND EXPLANA TION AS WAS GIVEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED FULL AND C OMPLETE DETAILS OF THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED THE SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 6 DIFFERENCE AS INCOME OF THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR, WHE REAS THE SUPPLIER HAS TREATED THE INCOME IN THIS FINANCIAL YEAR. HENCE IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT IN SUCH A CASE, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PE NALTY AFTER INVOKING THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 27 1(1)(C) AND COMPUTED THE PENALTY AT RS.6,77,770/-. SUCH A PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), MAINLY, BY REITERATING THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER. 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS GIVEN ALL DETAILS OF RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCE AND THE R EASONS FOR THE ACCOUNTING TREATMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY M/S. L & T LTD. THE THREE MAIN REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR WERE THAT, M/S. L & T HAD TAKEN BLAN K DATED CHEQUE IN ADVANCE AND THEY USE TO DEPOSIT IN THEIR ACCOUNT AGAI NST THE MATERIAL DELIVERED AND THE CLEARANCE OF THE CHEQUES AT TIME C OMES IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR; SECONDLY, M/S. L & T HAD REVERSED MAJOR AMOUNT DURING THE A.Y. 2005-06 IN THEIR BOOKS, HOWEVER, SAME HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED IN THE SAME ACCO UNTING YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE PURCHASES ARE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 7 ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM M/S. L & T AT THE END OF THE MONTH. THIS WAS MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT, AT TI MES MATERIALS IN SOME CASES ARE DIRECTLY DISPATCHED TO THE CONSUMER S FOR WHICH INTIMATION TO THE ASSESSEE IS RECEIVED AT MUCH LATER D ATE; LASTLY, M/S. L & T HAS GIVEN HUGE DISCOUNT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 DETAILS FOR WHICH CAME TO THE ASSESSEES NOTICE ONLY IN THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN AND OFFERED TO TAX IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, M/S. L & T HAS ALSO GIVEN A CERTIFICATE THAT SUCH TIME GAP IN ACCOUNTING DOES APPEAR IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE STOCKIS T. THE RELEVANT CONTENT OF THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS REPRODUCED HERE UN DER: TO WHOMSOEVER IT MAY CONCERN M/S.NARESH TRADING COMPANY IS OUR AUTHORIZED STOCKI ST FOR OVER A DECADE. WE GIVE DELIVERY OF OUR GOODS DIRECTLY TO OUR STOCKIST OR GIVE DELIVERY DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER OF OUR STOCKIST AS PER INS TRUCTIONS OF STOCKIST AND ACCORDINGLY WE RAISE THE SALE BILL ON OUR STOCKST. IN CASE OF SALE REVERSALS/CANCELLATION/ADJUSTMENTS DONE IN OUR SYSTEM, HARD COPY CREDIT NOTES ARE ISSUED TO STOCKISTS ON DEMAND . SINCE, SYSTEM ENTRIES IN OUR ONLINE ERP SYSTEM (SAP R13, VERSION 4.6C) ARE OFTEN RATHER COMPLEX, STOCKISTS OCCASIONALLY APPROACH US FOR CLARIFICATIONS ON VARIOUS SYSTEM ENTRIES SUBSEQUENTLY, OFTEN A FEW MO NTHS LATER. TIME LAGS ON SUCH QUERIES OFTEN SPILL OVER INTO A DIFFERENT ACCO UNTING YEAR, THE EFFECT OF WHICH, HOWEVER, NATURALL Y GETS NEGATED SINCE BALANCE OUTSTANDINGS ARE A FUNCTION OF A TIME POINT RATHER THAN A TIME PERIOD. THIS COMMUNICATION IS BEING ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF M/S.NARESH TRADIN G COMPANY TO ENABLE THEM TO ISSUE CLARIFICATION TO THEIR INCOME TAX ASSESSING AUTHORI TIES IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 2007. FOR LARSEN & TOUBRO LIMITED SD/- C.R. LAKSHMAN AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 8 THUS, ON THESE FACTS, THE PENALTY CANNOT BE CONFIRMED EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT, SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF DIFFERENCE HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO AND THEREF ORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED ON SUCH DIFFERENCES ARE JUSTIFIED, BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE EXACT DIFFERENCES. ACCORDINGLY , PENALTY LEVIED SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE RE LEVANT FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO AND CIT(A) AND ALSO THE RELEVANT MATER IAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF DI FFERENCES OF PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS RECORDED BY T HE M/S. L & T LTD. IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FIRST OF ALL FOR FRAM ING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C), HEAVY RELIANCE HAS B EEN PLACED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE OTHER PARTY TO DRAW ADVERSE IN FERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT SEEKING PROPER EXPLANATION FROM THE SAID PARTY. FROM THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT SO FAR AS ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED HE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DIFFER ENCES IN THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES AS RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCO UNT AND ALSO THE AMOUNT OF SALES RECORDED BY M/S. L & T LTD. IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 9 THE MAIN REASONS AS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE THA T; FIRSTLY; M/S. L & T LTD. HAD BEEN TAKING BLANK AND PO ST DATED CHEQUES IN ADVANCE WHICH ARE ENCASHED AGAINST MATERI AL DELIVERED. AT TIMES THE CHEQUES DEPOSITED COME INTO ASSESSEES BANK IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH LEADS TO RECO RDING OF DIFFERENT DATES FOR A PARTICULAR SUPPLY OF MATERIAL; SECONDLY; M/S. L & T LTD. HAS REVERSED A SUM OF RS. 10,74,220/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN REVERSED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOK IN THE SAME ACCOUNTING YEAR, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS RE CORDED THE PURCHASES BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM M/ S. L & T AT THE END OF THE MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAS REVERSED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN SUPPORT OF WHICH INVOICE WISE DETAILS WERE ALSO FURNISHED. LASTLY; M/S. L & T LTD. HAS GIVEN DISCOUNT OF RS.13,0 6,713/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND THE ASSESSEE CAME TO K NOW ABOUT SUCH A DISCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, WHILE RECONCILING THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. L & T LTD. SUCH A D ISCOUNT WAS RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESS EE HAS TRIED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM ON THE DIFFERENCES PO INTED OUT BY THE AO AND HAS ALSO PRIMA-FACIE DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS AND BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. REGARDING IRRECONCILED DIFFERENCE ON R EVERSAL OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE L & T AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE, W E ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE ACTION OF THE AO THAT IT WILL LEAD TO SUPP RESSION OF SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 10 INCOME IN THIS YEAR. ON THE ISSUE OF DISCOUNT ALSO I T IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TH E NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR. SUCH AN ACCOUNTING OF ENTRY MADE IN THE NEXT A SSESSMENT YEAR WAS MUCH BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE SAME ONLY WHEN THE DIFFERENCE WAS POINTED OUT TO HIM . FROM THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE M/S. L & T LTD., WHICH HAS B EEN REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION GETS FURTHER CORROBOR ATED AND SUBSTANTIATED. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO CONFIRM THE PENALTY, EITHER FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVI ED OF RS.6,77,770/- IS DELETED. 10. . !6 & '.! / 7! / ! 89 : 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 TH DAY OF MARCH 2015. SD/- SD/- SD SD/ - SANJAY ARORA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ! ! ! ! '# '# '# '# AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, ;& ;& ;& ;& DATED: 13 .03.2015 PATEL SMT. KAUSHAL R. VYAS 11 ' / +!< =<(! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) & '.! / THE ASSESSEE; (2) / THE REVENUE; (3) >() / THE CIT(A); (4) > / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) < AB +!& , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) BC' D / GUARD FILE. ,