TOP OPTICS, MUMBAI V. A.O WD 13(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3526/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4518 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 29-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LEENA SRIVASTAVALD
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL JOSHI LD
• Keywords: Depreciation; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 133A; 145; 263; 154; 2

Judgement Text

M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) ./ I.T.A. NO.3526 & 3527/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03) M/S. TOP OPTICS 1 ST & 2 ND FLOOR, BLOCK B SUJAL MANSION, BHANGWADI KALBADEVI ROAD, MUMBAI-400 002. / VS. ITO WD. 13(1)(2) ROOM NO.419, 4 TH FLOOR AAYKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI-400 020. PAN/GIR NO. AAA FT - 5503 - B ( '# /APPELLANT ) : ( $%'# / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPUL JOSHI-LD. AR REVENUE BY : MS. LEENA SRIVASTAVA-LD.CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/02/2021 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) 1. AFORESAID APPEALS BY ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2002-03 CONTEST SEPARATE ORDER FOR LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN ITA NO.3526/M/2011, THE ASS ESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONS WHEREAS IN ITA NO.3527/MUM/2011, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY CONFIRMATION OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C). FIRST, WE TAKE UP QUANTUM APPEAL WHICH CONTEST THE ORDER O F LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-24, MUMBAI, [I N SHORT REFERRED TO M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 2 AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-24/13(1)(2)/363/REST /06-07 DATED 22/02/2011 ON FOLLOWING PRECISE GROUNDS OF APPEAL F ILED ON 27/02/2017: - 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-24, M UMBAI ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(1)(2), MU MBAI IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATING GROSS PROFIT OF THE APPELLA NT. 1.2 WHILE DOING SO, THE AO ERRED IN-(I)BASING HIS A CTION ONLY ON SURMISES, SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES (II)TAKING INTO ACCOUNT I RRELEVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS; AND (III) IGNORING RELEVANT MATERIA L AND CONSIDERATIONS AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.3 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, NO SUCH ACTION WAS CALLED FOR. 1.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE BUT NOT ADMITTIN G THAT SOME ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE AO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW, IS ARBITRARY AND EXCESSIVE . 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN (I) CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF AO IN MAKING FURTHER ADDITIONS OF RS.20 LACS. (II)NOT REDUCING THE ADDIT ION BY RS.12.00 LACS WHICH WAS THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION ALREADY DELETED BY THE HONB LE ITAT. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING DOCUMENTS PLA CED IN THE PAPER- BOOK. OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APP EAL WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 3.1 FOR APPRECIATION OF CONTROVERSY, IT WOULD BE NE CESSARY TO REFER TO CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS. THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE A WHOLESALER DEALER OF SPECTACLE FRAMES, CASES AND LENSES WITH CUSTOMER S SPREADING ALL OVER INDIA. DURING YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E WAS STATED TO BE IN THE PROCESS OF CLEARING ITS STOCK SINCE IT WAS BEIN G MERGED WITH ANOTHER ENTITY NAMELY M/S SUVIN OPTICS WHICH ULTIMATELY TOO K PLACE IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 3.2 AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) ON 27/12/20 04 WHEREIN RETURNED INCOME OF RS.6.21 LACS WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 18.21 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, DISAL LOWANCE OUT OF CLOSING STOCK ETC. THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED SALE OF RS.78.33 LACS AND ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB. THE CLOSING ST OCK WAS VALUED AT M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 3 LOWER OF COST PRICE OR MARKET PRICE. THE QUANTITATI VE DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK WOULD REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLOSING ST OCK OF 304 PIECES OF FRAMES / SUNGLASSES AND 100500 PIECES OF LENSES PAI RS BESIDES 9078 PIECES OF CASES. THERE WAS NO FRESH PURCHASE OF LEN SES AND CASES DURING THE YEAR. THE OPENING STOCK OF FRAMES WAS 58 59 PIECES, CASES 12829 PIECES AND LENSES 151784 PAIRS. THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6.42% WHEREAS NET PROFIT RATE WAS 7. 56%. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE AND ITS ASSOCIATED CONCERN NAMELY M/S SUNRISE OPTICS WAS SUBJECTED TO SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A ON 1 7/01/2002 WHEREIN COMBINED CLOSING STOCK WAS VALUED AT RS.42.43 LACS. THE COMBINED CASH OF RS.2.96 LACS WAS ALSO FOUND ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. AS PER PROVISIONAL TRADING ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLOSI NG STOCK OF RS.21.42 LACS WITH GROSS PROFIT OF 42.36% ON SALE OF RS.59.9 4 LACS. THE STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF M/S SUNRISE OPTICS WAS RS.11.18 LACS. THE AGGREGATE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS RS.32.60 LACS AS AGAINST PHYSICAL STOCK OF RS.42.43 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSE E WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOR RS.9.83 LACS. T HE STOCK DISCREPANCIES, IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, AROSE DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN STOCK QUANTITIES OF SUNGLASSES AND FRAMES. 3.4 DURING SURVEY ACTION, THE STATEMENT OF HUSBAND (SHRI VIJAY GOGRI) OF ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM I.E. JAYA VIJAY G OGRI WAS RECORDED. IT WAS ADMITTED THAT NO STOCK DETAILS WERE BEING MAINT AINED. WHILE ANSWERING Q.NO.10, SHRI VIJAY GOGRI, WITH A VIEW TO MEET ALL THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY SURVEY TEAM AND ALSO T O MEET ANY OTHER LIKELY DISCREPANCY, DECLARED ADDITIONAL AMOUNT INCO ME OF RS.20 LACS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER RS.8 LACS IN T HE CASE OF M/S SUNRISE OPTICS. UPON PERUSAL OF AUDITED FINANCIAL S TATEMENTS AS PLACED M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 4 ON RECORD, IT COULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H ONORED THE SAID ADMISSION AND CREDITED A SUM OF RS.20 LACS TO ITS P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS INCOME DECLARED U/S 133A. 3.5 HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, LD. AO OPINED THAT STOCK HAVING COST OF RS.22.20 LACS WAS VALUED AT MARKET PRICE OF RS.10.19 LACS AND ACCORDINGLY, SHOW-CAUSED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE MARKET VALUE BE NOT ADOPTED TO VALUE THE CL OSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED BY SUBMITTING THAT ROUGH LENSES W ERE IMPORTED IN FY 1997-98 IN TWO SHIPMENTS. THE COST OF 141945 PAIRS OF IMPORTED LENSES WAS RS.17/- PER PAIR. AFTER IMPORT, ONLY 3840 PAIR COULD BE SOLD SINCE THE COLOR OF LENSES WENT OUT OF FASHION. SINCE ASSESSEE HELD LARGE STOCK OF ROUGH LENSES, IT REDUCED THE PRICES AND WAS ABLE TO SELL 51734 MORE PAIRS DURING THE YEAR. THE REMAINING 100500 PAIRS L YING IN STOCK WERE VALUED AT RS.5/- PER PAIR, BEING APPROX. MARKET VAL UE LIKELY TO BE FETCHED. THERE WAS NO PURCHASE OF FRESH LENSES DURING THE YE AR. THE AFORESAID FACTS LED TO DECREASE IN OVERALL GROSS PROFITS TO 6 .42%. HOWEVER, REJECTING THE SAME, LD. AO ADDED THE DIFFERENTIAL A MOUNT OF RS.12 LACS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18.21 LACS. THE STAND OF LD. AO WAS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE ORDER DATED 25/08/2005. 3.6 IN THE MEANWHILE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X-13, INVOKING REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 VIDE ORDER DATED 27 /03/2006, ALLEGED THAT THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS DRAWN IN SUCH A WAY S O AS TO NULLIFY THE DECLARATION MADE DURING SURVEY ACTION SINCE THE ASS ESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.6.21 LACS ONLY WHICH INCLUDE ADDITIONA L INCOME OF RS.20 LACS DECLARED DURING SURVEY. SINCE LD. AO FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF THE M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 5 SAME DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SET- ASIDE AND LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THIS DISC REPANCY. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REVI SIONAL JURISDICTION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO. NO.2363/MUM/2006, HOWEVER, IT WITHDREW THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 06/03/2007, A C OPY OF WHICH IS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT WITHDRAWAL OF THE APPEA L IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 WAS ALREADY PASSED BY LD. AO AND THE SAME WAS ALREADY UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DAT ED 21/03/2007. 3.7 PURSUANT TO DIRECTIONS U/S 263, FRESH ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 WAS PASSED BY LD. AO ON 26/12/2006. IN THE SAID ORD ER, LD. AO DIVIDED THE FINANCIAL YEAR INTO TWO PARTS I.E. PERIOD-1 (UP -TO THE DATE OF SURVEY) AND PERIOD-2 (PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY). THE GP RATE OF 42.36% AS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN PROVISIONAL TRADING ACCOUNT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS APPLIED TO POST-SURVEY PERIOD SALES. IN OTHER W ORDS, THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED U/S 145 AND GP RATE OF 42.36% WAS APPLIED FOR WHOLE OF THE YEAR WHICH WAS FURTHER INCREASED BY AMOUNT OF TDS D EBITED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. FINALLY, THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.27.87 LACS IN AN ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 ON 26/12 /2006. THIS ORDER WAS RECTIFIED U/S 154 ON 26/05/2008 TO RECTIFY THE FIGURES OF PROFITS SHOWN IN THE PROVISIONAL TRADING ACCOUNT. THE SAID RECTIF ICATION RE-DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.31.84 LACS. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEA L VIDE ORDER DATED 06/08/2007 BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE LD. CIT HAD GIVE N SPECIFIC FINDINGS IN ORDER PASSED U/S 263, HE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO ADJ UDICATE THE ISSUES. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) WAS TURNED DOWN BY TRIBUNA L VIDE ITA M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 6 NO.6770/MUM/2007 ORDER DATED 30/03/2009 WHEREIN VID E PARA-10 OF THE ORDER, LD. CIT(A) WAS DIRECTED TO ADJUDICATE THE IS SUE ON MERITS. PURSUANT TO AFORESAID DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, A FRESH APPELLATE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS)-24, MUMBAI ON 2 2/02/2011 WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE BEFORE US. 3.8 AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT APPELLATE ORDER DATED 25/08/2005 ARISING OUT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESS MENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) (AS ELABORATED IN PARA 3.5 ABOVE) CAME UP FO R CHALLENGE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITA NO.6191/MUM/ 2005 ORDER DATED 26/06/2008. IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS AS MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF CLOSING STOCK WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 27/12/2004. THE TRIBUNAL, IN PARA-7 OF THE ORDER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENT ITLED TO VALUE ITS CLOSING STOCK AT MARKET PRICE WHICH WAS LOWER THAN THE COST. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN OTHER YEARS, THE SALE OF THE MATER IAL @RS.5/- WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. FURTHER, THE VALUE OF OPEN ING STOCK IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS ALSO ACCEPTED. WHEN THE ASSESSE E FOLLOWED REGULAR METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, THE A DDITION OF RS.12 LACS DESERVE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS. 3.9 THIS DECISION WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE DURING SET-ASIDE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PUR SUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 6770/MUM/2007 ORD ER DATED 30/03/2009 IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S . 263 AS ELABORATED IN PRECEDING PARA 3.7. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT BY WITHDRAWING THE APPEAL CHALLENGING JURISDICTION U/S 263 BEFORE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY LD. CIT-13 IN ORDE R PASSED U/S 263 ON M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 7 27/03/2006 AND THEREFORE, THE PLEA THAT THE VALUATI ON OF CLOSING STOCK WAS TO BE DONE AS PER THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 2 6/06/2008 COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. THE OTHER PLEAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO DISMISSED AND THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN RE-DETERMININ G THE INCOME WAS UPHELD. AGGRIEVED, AS AFORESAID THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. OUR FINDINGS AND ADJUDICATION 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTUAL MATRIX AS ELABOR ATED BY US, IT COULD BE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES WAS SUBJEC TED TO SURVEY ACTION WHEREIN COMBINED PHYSICAL STOCK WAS TAKEN AN D TO COVER UP THE DISCREPANCIES, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS.20 LACS WHICH HAS, IN FACT, CREDITED TO ITS FINANCIAL STATE MENTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS THE ALLEGATIONS OF LD. AO THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO NULLIFY THE DECLARATION SO MADE BY VALUING THE CLOS ING STOCK AT LOWER RATES AND ALSO BY RESORTING TO SELL THE FRAMES AT ABYSMAL LY LOWER RATES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED U/S 145 AND T HE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 42.36% HAS BEEN APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE BOOKS WERE SUBJECTED TO T AX AUDIT AND THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT COULD ALSO BE OBSERVED THAT DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND ONLY IN THE PHYSICAL STOCK OF FRAMES. TO COVER UP THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED ADDIT IONAL INCOME OF RS.20 LACS. NO DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN THE STOC K OF LENSES. DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. AO CHOSE TO MA KE ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS SINCE THE CLOSING STOCK OF LENSES WAS VA LUED AT RS.5/- PER PAIR AS AGAINST COST OF RS.17/- PER PAIR. HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID ACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASS ESSEES APPEAL ITA M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 8 NO.6191/MUM/2005 ORDER DATED 26/06/2008 WHEREIN THE ADDITION OF RS.12 LACS WAS DELETED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE MATTER OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF LENSES HAS ALREADY ATTAINED FINALI TY. 5. PROCEEDING FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS AND FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS, VOUCHERS, BILL S, PURCHASE AND SALES REGISTER AS CALLED FOR BY LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY LD. AO IN THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. RATHER THE ASSESSEE WAS SUCCESSF UL IN EXPLAINING THAT FALL IN GROSS PROFIT WAS MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF OLD STOCK OF LENSES FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO FRESH PURCHASES DURING THE YEAR. THERE WAS ONLY DISPOSAL OF THE OLD STOCK AND THE BALANCE CLOSING S TOCK WAS VALUED AT LOWER OF COST OR MARKET PRICE, WHICH ACTION THE TRI BUNAL HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS IN THE SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE REVENUE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE GROSS PROFI T AS ESTIMATED BY LD. AO IN THE CASE OF M/S SUNRISE OPTICS HAS BEEN A CCEPTED BY TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.3524/MUM/2011 ORDER DATED 03/04/2013. HOW EVER, WE FIND THAT THE LOSS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE I S ARISING ONLY DUE TO LOWER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF LENSES WHICH HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND WE SEE NO R EASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE SAME. 7. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AR E INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS U/S 145 WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED AND THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AS DONE BY LOWER AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE SU STAINED. THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER ITS M/S TOP OPTICS ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2002-03 9 COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE APPEAL STAND ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ITA NO.3527/MUM/2011 8. CONSEQUENT TO ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR RS.11.36 LACS VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 25/03/2009.THE SAME, UPON CONFI RMATION BY LD. CIT(A) IS IN FURTHER CHALLENGE BEFORE US. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY DELETED THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS AS ABOVE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY WOULD NOT SURVIVE. WE ORDER SO. TH E APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. CONCLUSION 9. BOTH THE APPEALS STAND ALLOWED IN TERMS OF OUR A BOVE ORDER. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 09 TH FEBRUARY, 2021 SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED :09/02/2021 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%'# / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. + ,$- , - , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. , ./0 / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI.