New Gujarat Tin Printing Works, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

ITA 375/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 37520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Difference of opinion; Valuation report; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

P AGE | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO.375/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2001-02 M/S. NEW GUJARAT TIN PRINTING WORKS, OPP. BIRLA FARM, DABHOI ROAD, KAPURAI CHOKADI, P.O. RATANPUR, BARODA PA NO. AADFN 3717 A VS THE A. C. I. T., CIRCLE-5, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAHUL KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 9-05-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15-06-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT (A )-V, BARODA IN APPEAL NO. CAB(A)/V/14/09-10 DATED 30.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 [U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.]. 2. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD RAISED ISSUES IN ITS GROU NDS OF APPEAL IN AN ILLUSTRATIVE AND NARRATIVE MANNER. IN ESSENCE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFINED TO A SOLITARY GROUND THAT THE LD. P AGE | 2 CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.1, 12,89,700/- LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE FIRM (THE ASSESSEE IN SHORT) IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P RINTING OF TIN PLATES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED ITS RETURN OF INCOME, ADMITTING NIL INCOME WHICH WAS, INITIALLY, PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENTLY REOPENED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,88,00,255/-. ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO T HAT THE TWO PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, VIZ., SHRI ABBASI H TINWALA A ND ABEDIN H TINWALA HAVE WITHDRAWN RATNAPUR FACTORY BUILDING FR OM THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE SAME WAS INTRODUCED IN ANOTHER FIRM, M /S. NEW GUJARAT TIN CIRCLE DEPOT ON THE SAME DAY I.E., ON 1.4.2000 AND LATER ON THE NEXT FY THE SAID FIRM WAS CONVERTED INTO A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY - NEW GUJARAT TIN CIRCLE DEPOT PVT. LTD. IT WAS FURT HER NOTICED THAT THE SAID RATNAPUR FACTORY BUILDING WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE PARTNERS FROM THE ASSESSEE AT WDV I.E., RS.34,64,745/- AND THE SA ME WAS INTRODUCED IN OTHER FIRM, M/S. NEW GUJARAT TIN CIRC LE DEPOT FOR RS.34,64,745/- AS ON 1.4.2000 AS THEIR CAPITAL. O N THE SAME DATE, P AGE | 3 THE SAID ASSET WAS REVALUED AT RS.3,22,65,000/- AS PER VALUATION REPORT DT.1.4.2000. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE F IRM M/S. NEW GUJARAT TIN CIRCLE DEPOT WAS CONVERTED INTO A COMPANY IN TH E NAME OF M/S. NEW GUJARAT CIRCLE DEPOT PVT. LTD ON 30.9.2001 AND IN THE SAID COMPANY, THE VALUE OF THE BUILDING WAS SHOWN AT RS. 3.22,65,000/- AND DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON THE SAME AMOUNT. I N VIEW OF THESE EVENTS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED U/S 147 TO BRIN G TO TAX THE DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSET BY WAY OF TRANSFER U/ S 45(4) R.W.S. 50 OF THE ACT. 3.1. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAC TORY BUILDING AT FACE VALUE OF RS.34.64,745/- WAS TRANSFERRED TO M/S. NEW GUJARAT CIRCLE DEPOT THROUGH FOLLOWING JOURNAL ENTRY: NEW GUJARAT CIRCLE DEPOT A/C DR. RS.34, 64,745 TO FACTORY BUILDING CR. RS.34,64,745 HOWEVER, IT WAS CLAIMED LATER ON THAT THE FACTORY B UILDING WAS TRANSFERRED TO PARTNERS ACCOUNTS BY FOLLOWING JOUR NAL ENTRIES: ABBASI TINWALA A/C DR. RS.17,3 2,372.50 ABEDIN TINWALA A/C DR. RS.17,3 2,372.50 TO FACTORY BUILDING CR. RS.34,64,745 THE ASSESSEE IN ITS LETTER DATED 17.3.2006 CLAIMED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 1.4.2000 VALUING THE FACTORY BUILDING AT RS.3,22,65,000/- P AGE | 4 WAS OBTAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AVAILING CREDIT FAC ILITIES FROM THE BANK AND THAT THE DETAILS OF THE VALUATION WAS (I) LAND AT RS.22,36,49,450/- AND (II) FACTORY BUILDING RS.86,15,894/- AGGREGATIN G TO RS.3,22,65,344/-. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT THE BUILDING TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INCLUDE COST OF LAND WHICH HAD TO BE EXCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. A COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT DT.1.3.2006 OF THE SAID BUILDI NG WAS PRODUCED WHICH VALUED THE FACTORY BUILDING AT RS.36,24,000/- AS ON 1.4.2000 AND THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AT RS.1,60,000 [F MV OF RS.36,24,000 CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,64,745]. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE LAND WAS IN THE NAMES OF SHR I ABBASI TINWALA AND SHRI ABEDIN TINWALA AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO NCERNED WITH THE LAND AND THAT THE VALUATION REPORT PREPARED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BANK FINANCE NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED. 3.2. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, A REVISED RETURN WAS FURNISHED ON 20.3.2006 ADMITTIN G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,255/- UNDER THE HEAD STCG ON TRANSFER OF RA TANPUR FACTORY BUILDING AND CLAIMED THAT THE SAME MAY BE TREATED A S RETURN IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. P AGE | 5 3.3. BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, T HE AO, FOR THE ELABORATE REASONS RECORDED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDE R, ARRIVED AT THE STCG AT RS.2,88,00,255/- [RS.3,22,65,000 34,64,74 5] ARISING OUT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET AND, ACCORDINGLY, PENA L PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE LAUNCHED. 3.4. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE AO, IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT (I) THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THE AO HAD ADOPTED INTERPRETATION O F LAW WHEN CONFLICTING DECISIONS OF HIGH COURT EXIST; (II) THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS PENDING BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL; & (III) PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE; 3.5. HOWEVER, PENALTY OF RS.1,12,89,700/- WAS LEVI ED BY THE AO FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) IN SPITE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRANSFER OF RATNAPUR BUILDING; (II) A FRESH VALUATION WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT T O AVOID TAX LIABILITY; & (III) FROM MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLE OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY NEW GUJARAT CIRCLE DEPOT PVT. LTD, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. NEW GUJARAT CIRCLE DEPOT WAS TRANSFERRED AS ON 30.9.2001 AT VALUE OF FACTORY BUILDING OF RS.3,22,65,000/- AND T HE DEPRECIATION WOULD ALSO BE CLAIMED ON THE SAID BUILDING AND THIS FACT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE REVALUATION RESERVE WAS MADE ON THE SAID BASIS AND THE COMPANY ALLOTTED SHARES TO THE D IRECTORS ALSO ON SAME BASIS. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE WITH THE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE P AGE | 6 ASSESSEE COUPLED WITH NUMEROUS CASE LAWS, THE CIT ( A) HAS OBSERVED THUS: 4.3.8IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PROPOSITIONS HAVE EMERGED FROM THE RELEVANT J UDICIAL PRECEDENTS: (I) WHEREVER THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETURNED AND ASSESSED INCOME, THERE IS AN INFERENCE OF CONCEALMENT AS A RULE OF L AW; (II) THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF REBUTTAL OF SUCH INFEREN CE IS ON THE ASSESSEE; (III) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXPECTED TO OFFER AN EXPLANATI ON. ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION BY ITSELF WILL MERIT PENALTY; (IV) THAT IN THE EXPLANATION WHEREVER OFFERED THE ASSESS EE WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT THE FAILURE TO RETURN THE CORRECT INCOME WAS N OT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY FRAUD OR NEGLECT ON HIS PART. IN OTHER WORDS, IT H AS TO BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IS BONA-F IDE AND ALL MATERIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM; (V) THAT IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE SO, HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME OR A DELIBERATE FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE; (VI) THAT IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT T O GO FURTHER AND ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS A CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR A DELIBERATE FAILURE TO FURNISH ACCURATE PARTICULAR S ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.3.9. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT WAS AWARE THAT BY REVALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AT ITS INSTANCE, GAINS HAVE ACCRUED TO THE P ARTNERS. EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED THAT LAND AND BUILDING BEAR DIFFERENT VALUATIONS, T HE GAINS ON TRANSFER OF LAND AND BUILDING OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE ORI GINAL RETURN. SECONDLY, BY FILING ANOTHER VALUATION REPORT DATED 1.3.2006 DURI NG REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAD INTENDED TO REDUCE THE CAPITAL GA INS LIABILITY. THERE ARE TWO VALUATION REPORTS AVAILABLE, BOTH BY GOVT. APPROVED VALUERS VALUING THE FACTORY BUILDING AT RS.86.15 LAKHS AND RS.36.24 LAKHS RESPE CTIVELY AS ON 1.4.2000. THE ENTIRE FACTUAL MATRIX SUGGESTS THAT THE REVALUATION OF THE ASSETS, TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THROUGH CAPITAL RESERVE BASED ON SA ME VALUATION REPORT, CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION BY THE RESULTANT COMPANY IS NOT A ONE OFF MISTAKE BUT A WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE FACTS WERE DETEC TED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE CLAIMS WERE MODIFIED BY THE APPELLANT. ONE CANNOT READ INTO THE MIND OF THE APPELLANT AND THE BONA-FIDE INTENTION HAS TO BE DIS CERNED FROM THE ACCOMPANYING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. ON ONE HAND, IT WAS CLAIME D THAT ONLY FACTORY BUILDING HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED AND NOT LAND, BUT IN THE REVAL UATION RESERVE THE TOTAL AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AGAINST THE FACTORY BUILDING. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE FACTS THAT ONLY FACTORY BUILDING HAS BEEN TRANS FERRED THEN, THE VALUATION AND TRANSFER TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH DI FFERENT. 4.3.10. IN MY HUMBLE VIEW, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE F ALSE AND THE CONDUCT OF THE P AGE | 7 APPELLANT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE BONA-FIDE AND, FURT HER, ALL MATERIAL RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO TH E AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY OF RS.1,12,89,700/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T IS CONFIRMED. 5. AGITATED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRE SENT APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A R REITERATED MORE OR LESS WHAT HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. IN FURTHERANCE, THE LD. A R FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 39 PAGES WHICH CONSIST OF, INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) O RDER DT. 7.10.10 IN ITA NO.345/A/08 FOR THE AY 2001-02 IN THE ASSESSEES OW N CASE; (II) AUDITED ANNUAL ACCOUNTS FOR AY 2001-02; (III) ORIGI NAL AS WELL AS REVISED RETURNS FOR AY 2001-02 ETC. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THAT BOTH THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD ERRONEOUSLY T REATED THE FACTORY BUILDING TO BE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREBY ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45 OF THE ACT THOUGH NO CONV EYANCE DEED WAS EXECUTED. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONLY ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WILL NOT DETERMINE THAT THE IMMOV ABLE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CONVEYANCE DEED, OR AGREEMENT FOR SALE COU PLED WITH POSSESSION AND PART PAYMENT IS ESSENTIAL. HE FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ISSUE WAS DEBATABLE THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE APPELLANTS CASE. THE LEARNED AR RELIED ON THE P AGE | 8 DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF AC IT VS PERFECT FORGINGS, 15 TAXMAN.COM 54 (CHD) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE ISSUE BEING DEBATABLE THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1 ) (C) CONFIRMED IN A CASE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DEBATABLE IS SUE AND DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. THERE IS NO CONFORMITY - WIT H REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT INCENTIVE/D EPB UNDER SECTION 80-IB AT THE RELEVANT TIME THERE WAS DIVERS ITY OF OPINION BETWEEN VARIOUS COURTS AND THE TRIBUNAL EVEN IN VIE W OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE CASE (SUPRA) AND THE PUNJAB AND HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN LIBERTY INDIA V. CIT (2007) 293 ITR 520 /1 58 TAXMAN 4 ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO MERIT IN HOLDING THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DEB ATABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME IN ITS RETURN REPORT OF T HE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT THOUGH INCOMPLETE. IN RESPECT OF SUCH A CLAIM, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DENIED BEING A DEBATABLE ISSUE [PARA 12]. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOM E OR FURNISHED ANY P AGE | 9 INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME SINCE, THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF SUCH WITHDRAWAL AND INDUCTION OF ASSE T IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXPLICITLY WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE REVENUE BASED ON WHICH THE REVENUE HAD INITIATED THE PROCE EDINGS. THE LEARNED AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE OF TH E CLAIM OF NON- APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 45(4) OF THE ACT WAS REJE CTED, THE PENAL PROVISIONS U/S 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE A TTRACTED AND RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 323 ITR 158 (SC). 5.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D R WAS VERY SPECI FIC IN HIS URGES THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY DELIBERATE D UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY THEREBY A CONCLUSION HAS BEEN ARRIVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCE ALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WHICH CLEARLY ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE RELEVANT CASE RECORDS AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS ON WHICH EITHER P AGE | 10 PARTY HAVE PLACED THEIR UNSTINTED CONFIDENCE. AT TH IS INSTANCE, IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT THE EARLIER BENCH IN ITS FINDINGS IN ITA 345/AHD/2008 DATED 07-10-2010 FOR AY 2001-02 IN T HE ASSESSEES OWN CASE (QUANTUM APPEAL) FOR THE REASONS RECORDED THEREIN HAD DIRECTED THE LEARNED AO TO RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE EARLI ER BENCH, THE LEARNED AO HAD GIVEN EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL ON 8-12-2010 AND HAD REVISED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.51,51,150/- (PAGE 14 OF THE ARS PAPER BOOK). FURTHER, ON ANALY ZING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESS EE FIRM WERE OF BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT WITHDRAWING THE ASSET FROM ON E OF THEIR PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND INDUCTING THE SAME TO ANOTHER OF THEIR PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WILL NOT BRING IN ANY GAIN OR LOS S AFFECTING THEM. FURTHER, THE TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE BY PASSING BOOK ENTRIES AND NOT BY EXECUTING ANY CONVEYANCE DEED OR SALE AGREEM ENTS. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS DEBATABLE AS ARGUED BY THE LEARNED AR. THE DECISION RELIED BY THE LEARNED AR CITED SUPRA HAS P ERSUASIVE VALUE CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE WHO LE SCHEME OF THE TRANSACTIONS SEEMS TO BE WRONGLY CONCEIVED BY THE C HARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE I S PENALIZED P AGE | 11 THOUGH BEING INNOCENT. IN THE CASE DTX CHEMICALS PV T. LTD. 288 ITR 196 IT WAS HELD THAT PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) CANN OT BE LEVIED FOR A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF TH E ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND DRAWING STRENGTH FROM THE ABOVE CITED DECISIONS OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT, THOUGH THE ADDITIONS A RE SUSTAINED IN THIS CASE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE ACT IS NOT WARRANTED AND FARFETCHED. FURTHER, FACTS OF THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THIS CASE BEFORE US AND HENCE NOT CONSIDERED. BASED ON THE AFORESAID REASONS AND DISCUSSIONS, WE HEREBY DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH WAS FURT HER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2012 SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: P AGE | 12 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: DIRECT DICTATION ON AMS COMP UTER 11-6-12/12-06-12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: