Sujag Fine Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Baroda V. The ACIT, Circle-4, Baroda

ITA 3527/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8158 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAURABH SINGH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

, , ,, ,L LL L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2007-08 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD., 42/6 & 7, GIDC ESTATE, AT & POST, NANDESARI, DIST. BARODA 391 340 VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, BARODA. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADCS 2989 J ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNIL TALATI, C.A. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAURABH SINGH, SR. D.R. ! ' #$ / DATE OF HEARING : 31/05/2018 %&'( ' #$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/06/2018 PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AT THE INSTANC E OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, VADODARA DATED 27.10.2015 PASSED FOR A SSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 & 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 2 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/10/2004 AND 29/10/2007 DECLA RING NIL INCOME AND INCOME OF RS.79,59,110/- IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND 20 07-08 RESPECTIVELY. ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE PASSED IN BOTH THE YEARS ON 06/12/2010 DETERMINING THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.45,81,659/- AND 1,69,13,581/- IN A.Y . 2004-05 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. THE LEARNED AO HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) IN BOTH THE YEARS. A NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06/12/2010 IN BOTH THE YEARS, WHI CH WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEP T THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS PREFER RED APPEALS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DECIDED QUANTUM APPEAL IN B OTH THE YEARS ON 21/08/2012 AND AFTER THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CI T(A), LEARNED AO TOOK UP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND HE PASSED IMPUG NED PENALTY ORDERS ON 31/03/2014. DISSATISFIED WITH THE PENALTY ORDERS, ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY H AS PARTLY DELETED THE PENALTY AND PARTLY CONFIRMED. WE HAVE BEEN INFORME D THAT REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN BOTH YEARS. 4. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. BEFORE WE EMBARK UPON AN ENQUIRY UPON ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 3 THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIA TE TO TAKE NOTE OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHICH READ AS UNDER: 9. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY AND, THEREFORE, IT IS SALUTARY UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF T HE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ALONG WITH EXPLANATION 1 WHICH READ AS UNDE R: 271. FAILURE TO FURNISH RETURNS, COMPLY WITH NOTIC ES, CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, ETC. (1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) OR THE CIT IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (A) AND (6)** (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PEN ALTY. (I) AND (INCOME-TAX OFFICER,)** ** ** (II) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) OR CLAUSE (D) , IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM WHIC H SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FRINGE BENEFIT THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH IN COME OR FRINGE BENEFITS: EXPLANATION 1- WHEREIN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIA L TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON U NDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE CIT TO BE FALSE, OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 4 INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 5. A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION WOULD REVEAL THA T FOR VISITING ANY ASSESSEE WITH THE PENALTY, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR THE LEARNED CLT(APPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THEM SHOULD BE SATISFIED, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS; (I) CON CEALED HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS F AR AS THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY IS CONCERNED, THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED UNDER THIS SECTION CAN RANGE IN BETWEEN 100% TO 300 % OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS A RESULT OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS. THE OTHER MOST IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THIS SECTION IS DE EMING PROVISIONS REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE SECTION NOT ON LY COVERED THE SITUATION IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE I NCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS, IN CERTAIN SITUAT ION, EVEN WITHOUT THERE BEING ANYTHING TO INDICATE SO, STATUTORY DEEM ING FICTION FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME COMES INTO PLAY. THIS DEEMING FICTION, BY WAY OF EXPLANATION I TO SECTION 271(1)(C) POSTULATE S TWO SITUATIONS; (A) FIRST WHETHER IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION OF FERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OR LEARNED CIT(APPEALS); AND, (B) WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT , MATERIAL LO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATIO N AND THE ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 5 ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BO NA FIDE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS RELATING T O THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME. UN DER FIRST SITUATION, THE DEEMING FICTION WOULD COME TO PLAY I F THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OR BY ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BY GIVING A CAT EGORICAL FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. IN THE SECOND SITUATION, THE DEEMING FICTION WOULD COME TO PLAY BY THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS EXP LANATION IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL IN COME AND IN ADDITION TO THIS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BONA FIDE AND ALL THE FACTS R ELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL I NCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE TWO SITUATION S PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION\APPENDED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THAT WHEN THIS DEEMING FICTION COMES INTO PLAY IN THE AB OVE TWO SITUATIONS THEN THE RELATED ADDITION OR DISALLOWANC E IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE PURPOSE O F SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE REPRESENTING THE INCOME IN RE SPECT OF WHICH INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. 6. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, LET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF PRESENT APPEALS. A PERUSAL OF PENALTY ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT FIRST ITEM OF ADDITION CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VISITING TH E ASSESSEE WITH ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 6 PENALTY IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF D EPRECATION ON GOODWILL. THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE ITAT IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL IN ITA NO.2508/AHD/2012, 2533/AHD/2012 (FOR THE ASS T. YEAR 2004-05) AND ITA NO.2603/AHD/2012 (FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08) C OPY OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE NEXT ITEM IN A.Y. 2004-05 RELATES TO DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,09,268/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY ON THIS ITEM AND ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HA S NOT BEEN CHALLENGED. 8. THE NEXT ITEM IS INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS .39,936/-. ORIGINALLY AN ADDITION OF RS.1,39,063/- WAS MADE OU T OF WHICH ADDITION OF RS.39,936/- WAS NOT PRESSED IN THE QUANTUM PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT WAS NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE THE IT AT. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT, A PERUSAL OF TDS CERTIFICATE WOUL D INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED INTEREST INCOME, WHICH REMAIN TO BE INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE CLERK AND SINCE IT HAS ADMITTED THE INCOME D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY IMPOSED. IN SUPP ORT OF ITS CONTENTION THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE CO OPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT- REPORTED IN 348 ITR 306. SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2007-08. THE ADDITION WAS OF RS.8,601/-. ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 7 AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.39,936/- IS CONCERNED, THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE AO, IS ON PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY ZANDU CHEMICALS LTD. WAS NOTICED BY THE AO. IT C ONTEMPLATES THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS.39,936/- BUT AS SESSEE FAILED TO RECOGNIZE THIS INTEREST INCOME. THERE IS NO EXPLANA TION AT THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, TO OUR MIND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THIS ISSUE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), PENALTY ON AN ADDITION OF RS.39,936/- STAND CONFIRMED. THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. IS NOT APPLICABLE. THE RE, A PROVISION FOR GRATUITY WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF REGULAR AS WELL AS ADHOC EMPLOYEES. AS FAR AS ADHOC EMPLOYEES WAS CONCERNED, NO PROVISION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AND IT WAS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED BACK WHILE FIL ING THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADD BACK, BUT GAVE AN EXPLANATIO N THAT CONSIDERING THE LARGE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, THE PERSON WHO HAS PREPA RED THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FAIL TO TAKE NOTE OF THESE ASPECTS. NO EX PLANATION IS AVAILABLE HERE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REPLY, THEREFO RE, PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.39,936/- IN A.Y.2004-05 AND 8,601/- IN A.Y.2007-08 IS CONFIRMED. 9. NEXT ITEM OF ADDITION IN A.Y. 2004-05 IS, ADDITI ON ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. A PERUSAL OF PENALTY ORDER WOULD IN DICATE THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.32,30,348/- WAS MADE U/S. 68. HOWEVE R, IN THE PRESENT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO T HE ADDITION OF ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 8 RS.8,63,598/-. THIS AMOUNT CONTAINS TWO COMPONENT, ONE TAKEN FROM SHRI SURESH B. SHETH AMOUNTING TO RS.6,98,598/- AND 1,65,000/- FROM KHOKHANI INVESTMENT. AS FAR AS, UNSECURED LOANS TAK EN FROM SHRI SURESH B. SHETH ARE CONCERNED. HE WAS ONE OF THE PROMOTERS OF THE COMPANY AND MANAGING DIRECTOR. ADDITION U/S.68 ON ACCOUNT O F LOANS TAKEN FROM HIM WAS MADE IN A.Y.2004-05 AS WELL AS 2007-08. THE ITAT HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN ITA NO.2087 & 2296/AHD/2012 IN A.Y. 2004-05, WHEREAS IN ITA NO.2510/AHD/2012. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN AN EXPLANATION ABOUT THIS ADDITION AND ON THE BASIS OF EXPLANATION IN OTHER YEARS ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. IN THIS YEAR, IT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE EXPLANATION BUT ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO FAILED TO PROVE THAT EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FA LSE. IN OTHER WORD THE REVENUE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT EXPLANATION OF T HE ASSESSEE ACCEPTING THE RECEIPT OF THE LOANS FROM SHRI SURESH B. SHETH WAS FALSE. SHRI SURESH B. SHETH IS IDENTIFIABLE PERSON AND A MAN OF MEANS BUT NECESSARY EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED IN THIS YEAR AND THE REFORE, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. TO OUR MIND THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERV E TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.6,95,598/- IT IS DELETED. 10. AS FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.1,65,000/-, IN THE CAS E OF KHOKHANI INVESTMENT IS CONCERNED. ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE AN Y EXPLANATION EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS THEREFORE, PENALTY ON THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 9 11. THE NEXT ITEM CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF JOB WORK. PENALTY ON THIS ITEM IS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REVENUE DID NOT CHALLENGE THIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) HENCE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE VISITED WITH PENALTY ON AN ADDITION OF RS.1,81,3 59/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2 004-05 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN ASST. YEAR 2007-08 FIRST ITEM OF ADDITION RE LATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON GOODWILL. THIS ADDI TION WAS DELETED BY THE ITAT HENCE NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED. 13. THE NEXT ITEMS ARE ADDITION OF RS.22,10,044/- U /S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND ADDITION OF RS.9,85,074/- U/S 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T BOTH THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE ITAT. IN THE ORI GINAL ORDER, TRIBUNAL HAS REMITTED ONE OF THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF T HE AO REPRESENTING ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- MADE U/S. 68. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEARING NO.148/AHD/2017 A ND THIS ADDITION ALSO STANDS DELETED. HE PLACED ON RECORD COPIES OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDERS. LEARNED DR DID NOT CONTROVERT TO THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT S UB-CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 10 271(1)(C ) PROVIDES MECHANISM FOR QUANTIFICATION OF PENALTY. IT CONTEMPLATES THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DIRECTED TO PAY A SUM IN ADDITION TO TAXES, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, WHICH SH ALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT O F TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNI SHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE QUANTIF ICATION OF THE PENALTY IS DEPENDED UPON THE ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ADDITIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN D ELETED THEREFORE, THE VERY BASIS TO VISIT THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PENALTY H AS BEEN EXTINGUISHED, AND NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UPON THESE TWO AMOUNT S. HENCE, PENALTY ON AN ADDITION OF RS.22,10,044/- IS DELETED. AS FAR AS AN ADDITION OF RS.9,85,074/- IS CONCERNED. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALRE ADY DELETED THE PENALTY AND NO APPEAL IS THERE BEFORE THE ITAT. 15. AS FAR AS INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 8,601/- IS CON CERNED. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED IT WHILE CONSIDERING IDENTICAL AM OUNT IN A.Y. 2004-05. PENALTY OF THIS ADDITION STANDS CONFIRMED. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 6 TH JUNE 2018 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED, 06/06/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.3527 & 3528/AHD/2015 SUJAG FINE CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. VS. A CIT A.Y. 2004-05 & 2007-08 - 11 $% & ''() *$)' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ) * / THE APPELLANT 2. +, * / THE RESPONDENT. 3. -./# 0# / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0# () ) / THE CIT(A)-2, VADODARA 5. 345 +# ./ , ) $ )./( , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. 56 7! / GUARD FILE. $% + / BY ORDER, ,/ - (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY