M/s. Anu Impex, V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-2(1),

ITA 381/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9306 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-07-2009
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEETA SHAH
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 271(1)(c)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI P.K.BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR:1998-99 DATE OF HEARING:15.7.09 DRAFTED:15.7.09 M/S. ANU IMPEX, RAMAKADA MARKET, PANKORNAKA, AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AAEFA7129E V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), INSURANCE BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SMT. NEETASHAH, SR. DR O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VI, AHMEDABAD IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- VI/WD.2(1)/88/03-04 DATED 23-12-2003. THE ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED BY THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), AHME DABAD U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDE4R DATED 22-02-2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99. THE PENALTY UNDER DISPUTE WAS LEVIED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(1), AHMEDABAD U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30-06 -2003. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF CREDIT NOTES NOT ACCOUNTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND ON ACCOUNT OF P ENALTY PAID BY THE ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 2 ASSESSEE FOR THE BREACH OF LABOUR LAWS. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C)IN RESP ECT OF THE AMOUNT OF CREDIT NOTE ACCOUNTED BY THE PARTY BUT NOT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND WHICH WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SURRENDERED THE SAID INCOME TO PURCHASE PEACE NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S.271(1)(C) ON THE AMOUNT PAID FOR PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER FOR BREACH OF LABOUR LAW WHICH WAS IN THE OPINION THAT SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWABLE U/S .37(1). 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE F ACT THAT THE THERE WAS RETURNED LOSS AS WELL AS ASSESSED LOSS IN THE A .Y. 1998-99 SO THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT TO CONCEAL THE I NCOME OR EVADE TAXES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NUMBER OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,56,758/- AND ALSO PENALTY PAID FOR BREACH O F CONTRACT AT RS.16,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THESE TWO ADDITIONS VIDE PARA-2 & 5 AS UNDER:- 2. DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE WITH SHREE PRAKASH TEXTIL ES GUJARAT LTD: IN THE LIST OF CREDITORS, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BALANC E OF RS.6,67,772 IN THE NAME OF SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJ. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONFIRMATION OF SHREE PRAKAS H TEX. GIJ. LTD. WAS CALLED. FROM THE CONFIRMATION STATEMENT IT WAS NOTICED THAT BALANCE SHOWN BY SHREE PRAKASH TEX. GUJ. LTD. IS OF RS.5.11 ,014 ONLY. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,56,758. IN ITS REPLY ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THIS DIFFERENCE IS DUE TO FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO TAKE IN TO ACCOUNT CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY SHREE P RAKASH FABRICS GUJ. LTD. ASSESSEE ALSO AGREED THAT IT HAS NO OBJECTION IF DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,56,758 IS ADDED TO ITS INCOME INN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. 5. PENALTY FOR CONTRACT LICENSE : ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 3 IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESSEE FIRM HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.16,000 ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY. FOR CONTRACT LICEN SE. WHEN ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY HOW SUCH PENALTY IS A DMISSIBLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE SHRI ANIL MEHTA C.A. ADMITTED THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT ADMISSIBLE AND HE HAS NO OBJECTI ON IF THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN BALANCES WITH SHRI PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. STATED THAT THE CREDI T NOTE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TIME. HENCE, HE COULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR AND THE SAME WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE LATER YEAR, I.E. 2000-01. THE ASS ESSEE HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. ACCOUNTED FOR I N THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS TO PENALTY FOR CONTRACT LICENCE, THE ASSESSEE FILED EXPLANATION THAT CERTAIN SPECIFIC RE CORDS IN RESPECT OF WOMEN LABOURER WERE NOT KEPT PROPERLY AND ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AS SESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION AND LEVIED THE PENAL TY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY VIDE PARA-3.1 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER FROM 14 TH LINE WHICH READS AS UNDER:- HOWEVER, THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,56,758/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN BALA NCES AS REFLECTED IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S.SHREE P RAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. AND IN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT CONCERN IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE AS PER APPELLANTS OWN ADMISSION A CREDIT NOTE WAS ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO TH E A.Y. 1998-99 AND THAT THE SAID CREDIT NOTE WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUC TION BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 I TSELF. THE APPELLANT HAD REGULAR DEALINGS WITH M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTIL ES GUJARAT LTD. AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF SUCH CREDIT NOTE. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD GUILTY OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF THIS INCOME OF R.1,56,758/-, BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS FINDINGS IN THIS READ ARE UPHELD. SIMILARLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF PENALTY OF RS.16,00/- IMPOSED BY TH E LABOUR OFFICE FOR BREACH OF LABOUR LAWS WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE PEN ALTY PAID FOR ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 4 INFRINGEMENT OF ANY LAW OF THE LAND DID NOT CONSTIT UTE AN ADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT WAS ASSISTED BY A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE B ELIEVED THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME. THE APPELLANT, THER EFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS GUILTY OF FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT O ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT O F RS.16,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPELLANT FIRM IS DEFINITEL Y GUILTY OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,56, 758/- BEING THE CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. AND OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,000/- WHICH WAS UNDERSTATED ON ACCOUNT OF WRO NG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR THE PENALTY PAID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LABOUR LAWS, AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S.271(1) I N RESPECT OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C COULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THE APPELLANT A S FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME IN ITS CASE WAS LOSS, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO O F HONBLE PUNJAB & HARAYANA HIGH COURT DECISION IN 183 ITR 69 AND HON BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN 249 ITR 670M CANNOT BE ACCEPTED BECAUSE THE RATIO OF THERE TWO DECISIONS IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE AFTE R THE INSERTION OF EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) THROUGH THE TAXA TION LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1975 W.E.F. 1.4.1976. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1) LEVIABLE ON THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.1,72,758/- ( RS.1,56,758/- + RS.16,000/-) AND IS SUE FRESH DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN TO THE APPELLANT FIRM FOR PAYMEN T THEREOF. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFOR E US. 4. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D SAME SUBMISSIONS THAT DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE-SHEET AS REFLECTED IN TH E ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. A ND IN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT CONCERN IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE AROSE ON ACCOUNT O F THE CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY THE SAID CONCERN WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E-FIRM IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AN D IT WAS RECEIVED IN LATER YEAR. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL STATED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR THE CREDIT NOTES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THE ADDITION MADE TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY PENAL TY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). AS REGARDS TO THE PENALTY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAINTAI N PARTICULARS DETAILS IN ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 5 RESPECT OF WOMEN LABOUR EXPENSES PAID TO THEM, IN T HE ABSENCE OF THESE DETAILS, THE LABOUR OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS EXPENDITU RE U/S.37(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, AS PER THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THE PEN ALTY LEVIED ON THIS COUNTS SHOULD BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, PENALTY ORD ER AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND STATED THAT AS PER ASSESSEES OWN ADMISSION CRE DIT NOTE WAS NOT ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99 AND THE SAID CREDIT NOTE WAS ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION BY M/S. SHREE PRAKA SH TEXILES GUJARAT LTD. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF. EVEN MORE, SHE ARGU ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REGULAR DEALINGS WITH M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES G UJARAT LTD. AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT POSSIBLE AT ALL THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AW ARE OF SUCH CREDIT NOTES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS INCLUDI NG THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE ABOVE FACTS AR E UNDISPUTED. IT IS A FACT THAT ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE DIFFERENCE IN BALANCES A S REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHREE PRAKA SH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. AND IN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT CONCERN IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN A QUERY WAS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL SHOWED HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE CREDIT NOTE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THAT THIS WAS RECEIVED IN 2000-01. THE LD. COUNSEL EVEN COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS DISPUTE REGARDING THIS CREDIT NOTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE CREDIT NOTES ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN FAVOUR OF AS SESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1997-98 RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AND T HE SAME CREDIT NOTES WERE ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION BY M/S. SHREE PRAKAS H TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITSELF. IT IS ALSO A FACT, THAT ASSESSEE HAS REGULAR DEALING WITH THAT CONCERN AND WE FIND THAT ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 22-02-2001 AND IN VIEW OF THE INQUIRY CARRIED OUT B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 6 REGARDS TO DIFFERENCE, HE DECLARED THE INCOME ON TH IS ACCOUNT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-00. WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT UNDER YEAR CONSIDERATION WAS GOING ON THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE BUT IN RESPECT OF DI FFERENCE IN BALANCE-SHEET ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT NOTE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REL EVANT YEAR, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDINGS AS UNDER:- HOWEVER, THE SITUATION IS DIFFERENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.1,56,758/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN BALA NCES AS REFLECTED IN THE APPELLANTS ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. SHREE PAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. AND IN THE ACCOUNT OF THAT CONCERN IN HE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE AS PER APPELLANTS OWN ADMISSION A CREDIT NOTE WAS ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO TH E A.Y. 1998-99 AND THAT THE SAID CREDIT NOTE WAS ALSO CLAIMED AS DEDUC TION BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. IN THE A.Y. 1998-99 I TSELF. THE APPELLANT HAD REGULAR DEALINGS WITH M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTIL ES GUJARAT LTD. AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AWARE OF SUCH CREDIT NOTE. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD GUILTY OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF THIS INCOME OF RS.1,56,758/- BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD A RE UPHELD. SIMILARLY THE DISALLOWANCE OF PENALTY OF RS.16,000/- IMPOSED B TH E LABOUR OFFICER FOR BREACH OF LABOUR LAWS WAS JUSTIFIED BECAUSE THE PEN ALTY PAID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF ANY LAW OF THE LAND DID NOT CONSTIT UTE AN ADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT WAS ASSISTED BY A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE B ELIEVED THAT IT WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FACT THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE IN CALCULATING THE TAXABLE INCOME. THE APPELLANT, THER EFORE, HAS RIGHTLY BEEN HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS GUILTY OF FUR NISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE APPELLANT FIRM IS DEFINITEL Y GUILTY OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,56, 758/- BEING THE CREDIT NOTE ISSUED BY M/S. SHREE PRAKASH TEXTILES GUJARAT LTD. AND OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,000/- WHICH WAS UNDERSTATED ON ACCOUNT OF WRO NG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION FOR THE PENALTY PAID FOR INFRINGEMENT OF LABOUR LAWS AND, ACCORDINGLY, IT IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S./271(1) IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO AMOUNTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE DIFFERENTIAL CREDIT NOTES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01 AND THIS IS A GOOD GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION, WHICH HAS BEEN MADE SO. BUT AS FAR AS LEVY OF ITA NO.381/AHD/2004 A.Y. 1998-99 M/S. ANU IMPEX V. ITO WD-2(1) ABD PAGE 7 PENALTY U/S. 271(1) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT DO ES NOT SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE TO LEVY PENALTY, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED EXPLANATION WHICH IS NOT TREATED AS FALSE BY THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT NOTES BUT AS REGARDS TO THE PENAL TY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF PENALTY PAID FOR BREACH OF LABOUR LAWS, WHICH HAS W RONGLY BEEN AS EXPLAINED U/S.37 AND FOR WHICH THE EXPLANATION SEEMS NOT TO B E BONA FIDE, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE LEVIED PENALTY FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/08/2009 SD/- SD/- (P.K.BANSAL) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD, DATED : 31/08/2009 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- VI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD