DCIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 371/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73457 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTI KUMARI
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Question of law; Wrong claim; Capital receipt

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.371 /CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE D.C.I.T., VS. M/S BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LT D., CENTRAL CIRCLE I, PLOT NO.3, INDUSTRIAL AREA I , CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACB9760D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.JYOTI KUMARI, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ADITYA KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28..01.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) (CENTRAL), GURGAON D ATED 14.01.2013 AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTIO N U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 10,99,19,325/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT. ACT, 1961 BY THE AO ON THE ADDITION OF R S.32,65,57,714/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE TAX SUBSIDY BY TREATING IT AS REVENUE RECEIPT AS AGAINST CAPITAL RECEIPT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD., DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SALE TAX SUBSIDY WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND HON'BLE (ITAT) IN APPEAL BY THE AS SESSEE AGAINST QUANTUM ADDITION. 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005-06 AND 2006- 07. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED SAL ES TAX EXEMPTION RECEIVED BY IT AT RS.32.65 CRORES AS CAPITAL RECEIP TS, WHICH WAS TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER HELD TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME AND PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED AT RS.10,99,19,325/ -. 6. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON TREATMENT OF SALES TAX SUBSIDY BY THE ASSESS EE AROSE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS .70 & 71/CHD/CHD/2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-0 6 AND 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.9.2013 HELD AS UNDER : 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE RECORDS. PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS LEVIABLE U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IN CASE ANY ONE OF THE TWO PRE-CONDITIONS ARE S ATISFIED. THE PRE-CONDITIONS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ARE EITHER THE A SSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR IN THE A LTERNATIVE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. EITHER OF THE TWO CONDITIONS NEEDS TO BE FULFILLED BEFORE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ENVISAGES AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE ITS BONAFIDES AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE T HE BONAFIDES OF HIS CLAIM, WITH REGARD TO THE PARTICULARS OF INCOM E FURNISHED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES NO PENA LTY IS LEVIABLE FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE EXPRESSI ONS CONCEALMENT AND INACCURATE PARTICULARS U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DELIBERATED UPON IN PLETHORA OF JUDGME NTS BY VARIOUS COURTS. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DHARMENDRA T EXTILES & 3 PROCESSORS CASE (SUPRA), OBSERVED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. HOWEVER, THE LIAB ILITY IS PENAL IN NATURE THOUGH BEING CIVIL LIABILITY AND THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ESTABLISHING THE MENS REA OF THE INTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE CONCEALED THE P ARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. HOWEVER, THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT AND COMPLETE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ONUS ON THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED TO PROVE ITS BONAFIDES. WHERE AN Y ADDITION TO, OR DISALLOWANCE FROM, HAD BEEN MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME, IT PER SE CANNOT BE THE FOUNDATION OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT AS FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE T AKEN A CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF CONCEALMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. UNDER THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C), THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE BONAFIDES OF HIS CLAIM AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGES ITS ONU S OF PROVING HIS CLAIM TO BE BONAFIDELY MADE, THE COURTS HAVE HE LD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T. 12. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN CIT, AHEMDABA D VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WHILE REFE RRING IN THE WORD PARTICULARS IN INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, OBSERVED, AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF WORD PARTICUL AR IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS, THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE S EPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD PARTICULARS USED I N SECTION 271 (1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IT WAS FURTHER HELD AS UNDER:- WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAIL S SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MU ST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THE CASE, THERE IS NO FI NDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEI NG THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF W ILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDI NG THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO INACCURATE PARTICULARS . (UNDERLINED SUPPLIED BY US) 13. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT, AHEMDABAD VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD (SUPRA) FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE IT, THERE WERE NO FINDINGS THAT ANY DE TAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME WERE NOT INCOR RECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE NOR ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DE TAILS SUPPLIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE COURT THU S HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDI TURE, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVEN UE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, ATTRACT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO LAID DOWN BY THE COURT THAT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IN CASE 4 OF EVERY NON ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, 14. SIMILAR RATIO HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHAHBAD COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD [322 ITR 73 (P&H)], WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN OBSERVE D THAT MAKING WRONG CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCE ALMENT OR GIVING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 15. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TEK RAM (HUF) 300 ITR 354 (P&H) HAD HELD THAT WHERE TH E ISSUE IS HIGHLY DEBATABLE IN AS MUCH AS TWO VIEWS WERE POSSI BLE ON THE SAID ISSUE AND WHERE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE ISSUE WAS BASED ON ONE POSSIBLE VIEW, THE MAKING OF SUCH BONA FIDE CLAIM ON THE BASIS OF A POSSIBLE VIEW COULD NOT BE TREATED A S CONCEALMENT OF ITS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR FURNISHING OF INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 16. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES [(2010) 228 CTR (P&H) 579 ] H ELD THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN DHARM ENDRA TEXTILE (SUPRA) CANNOT BE READ AS LAYING DOWN THAT EVERY CASE WHERE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE INACCURATE, PENALTY MUST FOLLOW. WHAT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN IS THAT QUALITATIVE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 276C AND PENALTY U NDER S. 271(1)(C) HAD TO BE KEPT IN MIND AND APPROACH ADOP TED TO THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE NEED NOT BE ADOPTED WHILE CONSIDERING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. EVEN SO, CONCEPT OF PENALTY HAS NOT UNDERGONE CHANGE BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. PENALTY IS IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF DELIBERATE DEFAULT AN D NOT A MERE MISTAKE. THIS BEING THE POSITION, THE FINDING HAVI NG BEEN RECORDED ON FACTS THAT THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS WAS SIMPLY A MISTAKE AND NOT A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE HELD TO BE PERVERSE. 17. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS RELA TING TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSABILITY OF SALES TAX SUBSIDY OF RS.20,22,09,664/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED THE SAID SUBSIDY AS CAPITAL RECEIPTS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME BUT THE SAME WAS ASSESSED AS REVENUE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJ AB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES L TD. (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD BEEN ADMITTED IN ITA NO.5 15 OF 2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 9.9.2009 AND THE SAME IS PEND ING BEFORE THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT FOR ADJUDICATION. FURTHER THE APPEAL RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN ITA NO.113 OF 2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 8 .3.2010 AND THE QUESTION ADMITTED IS IN RELATION TO THE NAT URE OF SALES TAX SUBSIDY BEING REVENUE RECEIPT INSTEAD OF CAPITA L RECEIPT. FURTHER SLP HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 5 ABHISHEK INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE QUESTION O F LAW HAS BEEN ADMITTED VIDE ORDER DATED 12.1.2007 AND SLP IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA. 18. THE ISSUE ARISING VIDE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN REL ATION TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON SUCH DE BATABLE ISSUE. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CAS E WAS ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUMS, MAKES THE ISSUE DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE ADDITION IN THE PRE SENT CASE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DEBATABLE ISSUE THAT WHETHER THE SALES TAX SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS CAPITAL IN NATURE OR NOT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SIM ILAR ISSUE OF RECEIPT OF SUBSIDY UNDER THE WEST BENGAL INCENTIVE SCHEME HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CAPITAL RECEIPT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RASOI LTD.(SUPRA) BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COUR T. THE UNIT OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THE ST ATE OF WEST BENGAL AND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT IS G OVERNED BY THE SAID SCHEME AS BEFORE THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS WHER E ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RELATION TO SUCH DEBATABLE ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE SAID TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME MAKING IT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 19.THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT V S. M/S GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS (SUPRA) ON THE IS SUE WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF GRANT-IN-AID WAS CAPITAL RECE IPT OR REVENUE RECEIPT BEING DEBATABLE ISSUE HELD THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT IMPOSABLE. THE RE LEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. M/S GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS (SUPRA) A RE AS UNDER: 3. WE FIND THAT THE RELIANCE ON THE ABOVESAID JUDGM ENT IS NOT TENABLE, AS IN THE AFORESAID CASE, THE DEDUCTIONS U NDER SECTION 80-O OF THE ACT WAS DECLINED FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES ALLEGEDLY INCU RRED BY IT. THE DELHI HIGH COURT OBSERVED (PAGE 170): 'THE ASSESSEE, FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80-O OF THE ACT, WANTED THE SAME AT 50 PER CENT OF THE GROSS INCOME RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IN INDIA PROVIDED BY I T TO ITS FOREIGN CLIENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ON CORRECT INTERPRETATION UNDER SECTION 80-O, DEDUCTION IS RES TRICTED TO THE NET INCOME AND, THEREFORE, EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN INDI A FOR EARNING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE HAD TO BE DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WANTED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPEN SES. AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO THE NEEDFUL IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS PART ICULARS DEMANDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ESTIMATE SUCH EXPENDITURE IN THE RATIO OF PROPORTION OF FOREIGN I NCOME TO THE TOTAL INCOME.' 4. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF RECEIPT OF GRANT-IN-AID FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. THE ASSE SSEE REFLECTED THE SAME AS CAPITAL RECEIPT, WHEREAS IT HAS BEEN TREATE D AS TO BE REVENUE RECEIPT. THE ISSUE WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF GRANT-IN-A ID IS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR A REVENUE RECEIPT, IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE FINDIN GS RETURNED IN THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON IS ON FEET OF NON-FURNISHING O F DETAILS OF EXPENSES. 6 THE ISSUE WAS NOT DEBATABLE AS IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE ON THE DIVISION BENCH JUDGMENT IS MISCONCE IVED. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN T HE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE PENALTY. CO NSEQUENTLY, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVES RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FOR THE OPINION OF THIS COURT. 20. SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS ALSO BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. TEK RAM (HUF) (SUPRA). 21. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT, AHEMDABAD VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) HAVE LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 22. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND F OLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT, AHEMDABAD VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD (SUPR A) AND THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. M/S GURDASPUR COOPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS (SUPRA) AND CIT V S. TEK RAM (HUF) (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEBAT ABLE ISSUE RAISED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE WHERE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE CA PITAL IN NATURE WAS REJECTED AND THE RECEIPTS WERE HELD TO B E REVENUE IN NATURE AND HENCE TAXABLE. UPHOLDING HE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED B Y THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.70/CHD/2012. 6. THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEA L ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NOS.70 & 71/CHD/2 013 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING, WE HOLD THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEBATABLE ISSUE RAISED, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXIGIBLE TO LEVY OF PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENU E IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH JANUARY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 7