M/s. Oriental Clearing Agencies, Mumbai V. Deputy Commssioner of Income-tax,

ITA 359/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7199 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-11-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUKESH JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: NIKHIL PATHAKSANKET S BORA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO S . 356 TO 359 /P U N/201 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 05 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 M/S. ORIENTAL CLEARING AGENCIES, NO. 9, EMBASSY CENTRE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 PAN : AAAFO3957G ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S /S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK/SANKET S. BORA REVENUE BY : SHRI MUKESH JHA / DATE OF HEARING : 06 - 11 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 1 1 - 2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : TH ESE FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06, 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2010 - 11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 3, PUNE DATED 29 - 12 - 2014 , COMMON FOR ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN ALL THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 2 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). 2. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FILING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF PENALTY ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT N O PROPER SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND IN INVOKING CORRECT LIMB UNDER WHICH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3). HOWEVER, GROUND NO. 1 RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS NOT PRESSED. 2.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. W HILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 2 74 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED BOTH THE LIMBS I.E. C ONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. AR REFERRED TO NOTICE DATED 29 - 10 - 2012 AT PAGE 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THEREAFTER, AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY FOR FURNISHIN G INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, IT IS EVIDENT FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CLEAR IN HIS MIND AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED. SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED ON ONE CHARGE , WHEREAS PENALTY HA S BEEN LEVIED ON DIFFERENT CHARGE. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY REPORTED AS 392 3 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 ITR 04 HAS HELD THAT WHERE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON A CHARGE DIFFERENT FROM THE CHARGE FOR WHICH SATISF ACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED , THE PENALTY ORDER IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 2.2 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07, 2007 - 08 AND 2010 - 11 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CLEARING AGENTS AND FREIGHT FORWARDERS. A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 29 - 02 - 2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM ADMITTED THAT BOGUS EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES WERE BOOKED TO THE CREDIT OF ASHTABHUJA ENTE RPRISES AND BOGUS COMMISSION PAYMENT S TO SOME OTHER PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, WHILE ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) THE AS SESSING OFFICER MENTIONED BOTH THE CHARGES I.E. CONCEAL ED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FINALLY, WHILE PASSING ORDER LEVYING PENALTY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE LD. AR CO NTENDED THAT THOUGH WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION AND WHILE LEVYING PENALTY SAME LIMBS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED, BUT, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED AND LEVIED ON WRONG LIMB/CHARGE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NOT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND AT THE TIME OF FIL ING ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAS FURNISHED WRONG PARTICULARS OF INCOME , BY CLAIMING BOGUS EXPENDITURE AND BOGUS PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NOT CONCEALMENT OF 4 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 INCOME. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS : I . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC); II . NAYAN C. SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 69 TAXMANN.COM 256 (GUJARAT). 2.3 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORDS INACCURATE PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST MEAN DETAILS SUPPLIED IN RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT OR NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE TWO DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS HAVING DIFFERENT CONNOTATION S . TO SUPPORT HIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASES OF DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 291 ITR 519 AND T. ASHOK PAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED AS 292 ITR 11. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI MUKESH JHA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A CASE O F DEEMED CONCEALMENT. THEREFORE, BOTH THE LIMBS CAN BE INVOKED. CLAIMING OF EXCESS EXPENDITURE ALSO AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT. TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIONS THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : I . PREMPAL GANDHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 335 ITR 23 (P & H); II . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD., 212 TAXMAN 519. 5 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 4. W E HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS ON WHICH BOTH THE SIDES HAVE PLACED RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RELIEF IN ITA NO. 356/PUN/2015 ON DIFFERENT GROUND AND IN I TA NOS. 357 TO 359/PUN/2015 BY RAISING ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT PLEAS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY, WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 356/PUN/2015. ITA NO. 356/PUN/2015 (A.Y. 2005 - 06) 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 29 - 10 - 2012 PASSED U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY IS REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW : THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT ARE INITIATED FOR CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME OF RS.77,45,900/ - . 6. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) ON 29 - 10 - 2012 WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED BOTH LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) I.E. CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH THE LIMBS WERE MENTIONED WITH CONJUNCTION OR . THEREAFTER, AT THE TIME OF PASSING ORDER LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT PENALTY IS 6 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 BEING LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY DATED 30 - 04 - 2013 READS AS UNDER : ACCORDINGLY, I HEREBY LEVY THE PENALTY OF RS.17,65,918/ - FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7. THUS, FROM BARE PERUSAL OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION, NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) AND THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY , IT IS UNAMBIGUOUSLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CLEAR IN HIS MIND QUA THE CHARGE UNDER WHICH PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY ON ONE CHARGE I.E. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND LEVIED PENALTY ON ANOTHER CHARGE I.E. FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA) HAS HELD THA T THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY HAS TO BE MADE ONLY ON THE GROUND FOR WHICH THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. IT CANNOT BE ON A GROUND OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NO NOTICE. THE PUNE BENCH ES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT RECOR DING OF SATISFACTION ON ONE GROUND AND LEVYING PENALTY ON ANOTHER WOULD MAKE THE PENALTY ORDER BAD IN LAW. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW , THE IMPUGNED ORDER CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEA L OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 35 7 /PUN/2015 (A.Y. 200 6 - 07 ) 8. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 29 - 10 - 2012 INITIATED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND VIDE ORDER DATED 30 - 04 - 2013 LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 7 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE AND PAYMENT OF COMMISSION SUBSEQUENTLY, THEY WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS. DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED AND OFFERED THE BOGUS PURCHASES AND COMMISSION , AMOUNTING TO RS.77,45,900/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NOT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 9. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF T. ASHOK PAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME CARRY DIFFERENT CONNOTATION. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAYAN C. SHAH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (SUPRA) HAS FURTHER ELABORATED THE MEANING OF THESE TWO EXPRESSIONS BY PLACING R ELIANCE ON THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD. (SUPRA). THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER : 8. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT MAY BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. , (2010) 322 ITR 158, WHEREIN THE COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HAS HELD THAT A GLANCE AT THE SAID PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, NOR WAS IT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EI THER. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IT HAD TO ONLY SEE AS TO 8 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 WHETHER IN THAT CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE COURT NOTED THAT AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULAR IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN THE PLURAL SENSE); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE, THE WORD PARTICULAR USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN WEBSTERS DICTIONARY, THE WORD INACCURATE HAS BEEN DEFINED AS: NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACC ORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT READING THE WORDS INACCURATE AND PARTICULARS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CO RRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. THE COURT NOTED THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. 10. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANAND VIPIN SANGHAVI VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NOS. 2183 TO 2185/PUN/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 DECIDED ON 31 - 10 - 2017 WHILE EXPLAINING THESE TWO EXPRESSIONS HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 11. THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT AND HON'BL E HIGH COURT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ARE TWO DIFFERENT CHARGES. THERE SHOULD BE NO AMBIGUITY IN THE MIND OF ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF RECORDING SATISFACTION AND THEREAFTER, A T THE TIME OF LEVYING PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO THE CHARGE FOR LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE CLEAR IN HIS MIND AT THE TIME OF RECORDING SATISFACTION THE LIMB OF CLAUSE (C) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 THAT H AS TO BE INVOKED. THE WORD CONCEALMENT MEANS ACT OF HIDING SOMETHING OR PREVENTING IT FROM BEING KNOWN. THE EXPRESSION CONCEALMENT OF INCOME DENOTES WITHHOLDING OR HIDING INFORMATION ABOUT INCOME OR INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OR IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SUCH ACT OF CONCEALMENT IS GENERALLY DELIBERATE. ON THE OTHER HAND, INACCURATE PARTICULARS DENOTE THAT SOME INFORMATION IS FURNISHED AND THE SAID INFORMATION IS WRONG, INCORRECT, FALSE, DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE. FOR PARTICULARS TO BE INACCURATE, THERE H AS TO BE FIRST FURNISHING OF INFORMATION OR PARTICULARS. 9 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 11. THE LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASES OF PREMPAL GANDHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA) AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (SUPR A), WE HAVE PERUSED BOTH THE DECISIONS. THE AFORESAID DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND HENCE, DO NOT SUPPORT THE CAUSE OF REVENUE. 12. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLETELY WITHHELD INFORMATION ABOUT THE INCOME GENERATED AND THERE IS N O MENTION OF SUCH INCOME EITHER IN THE BOOKS OR THE RETURN OF INCOME , SUCH SUPPRESSION OF INCOME WOULD FALL WITHIN THE EXPRESSION CONCEALMENT OF INCOME . IT IS NOT SO IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WRONGFUL CLAIM OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE , THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TH US, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE RECORDING SATISFACTION FOR LEVYING PENALTY HAS ERRED IN INVOKING WRONG LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) . CONSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED UNDER WRONG CHARGE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NOT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. SINCE, THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED ON WRONG CHARGE , THE SAME IS UNSUSTAINA BLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO S . 35 8 & 359 /PUN/2015 (A.Y S . 200 7 - 08 & 2010 - 11) 1 3 . THE FACTS GERMANE TO BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 AND 2010 - 11 ARE IDENTICA L TO THE FACTS DISCUSSED IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 357/PUN/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. SINCE, THE FACTS AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS , THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 10 ITA N OS. 356 TO 359/PUN/2015, A.YS. 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 2006 - 07 WOULD MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 AND 2010 - 11. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN EARLIER, THE IMPUGNED ORDERS IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S ARE ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 10 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 10 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 3, PUNE 4. / THE PR. CIT - 2, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE