Chintan Processors Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(1), Surat

ITA 388/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6345 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PATEL
• Section: 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD., PLOT NO. 46, UDHNA UDYOG NAGAR, UDHNA, SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, SURAT PA NO. AAACC 9409 L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI A. K. PATEL, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 15 TH DECEMBER, 2008, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CHALLE NGING LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE IT ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PRO GRESS AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB RECEIPTS. THE L EARNED CIT(A) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF WO RK IN PROGRESS. THEREFORE, ONLY QUESTION LEFT FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS REGARDING PENALTY CONFIRMED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.8,10,334/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB RECEIPTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED IN ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 2 THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE AO HAS STATED THAT JOB WORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2004 WAS THE HIGHEST I.E. 8.18 LACS METERS AS COMPARED TO OTHER MONTHS, WHERE AS IN THE OTHER MONTHS THE JOB CHARGES RECEIPTS WERE MORE THAN RS.4 .39 PER METER. THE AO NOTICED FROM THE BILLS OF JULY, 2004 THAT JO B CHARGES WERE MENTIONED AS RE.1/- PER METER FOR DYEING OF CLOTH W HEREAS THE COST OF PRODUCTION EXCLUDING THE COLOUR WAS ALSO RS.2.56 PE R METER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DYEING WOR K WAS DONE AT RE.1/- PER METER WHEN THE COST WAS MUCH MORE AND TH E JOB CHARGES RECEIVED WERE MUCH HIGHER THAN RS.4/ - OR RS.5/- AN D EVEN RS.6/- PER METER IN VARIOUS MONTHS. THE ASSESSEE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE WORK DONE IN JULY,2004 WAS ONLY WHITE WASHING OF 771747 METERS OF CLOTH IN RESPECT OF WHICH PROCESSING COST WAS ONLY RS.1.1 7 PER METER AND IT HAD DONE THE WORK AT LOSS OF RE.0.17 PER METER ONL Y. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND AD OPTED HIGHER RATE PER METER AND WORKED OUT SUPPRESSION OF JOB RE CEIPTS @ 1.05 PER METER AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.8,10,334/-. PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS WERE SEPARATELY INITIATED AND VIDE SEPARATE ORDER THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE PENALTY ORDER WAS CHALLEN GED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CORRECT INCOME WAS SHOWN BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION AS IT CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED ITS ARGUMENTS. THE AO, THEREFORE, STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED ITS INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO APPEAL AGAINST QUANTUM IS FIL ED TO AVOID LITIGATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MALA FIDE INTENTION; THEREFORE, PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED. TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE AND ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 3 CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THIS ISSUE. HIS FINDINGS I N PARA 2.3.3 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2.3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE A. O. NEIT HER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT COULD SHOW THAT THE WHITEWASH WORK WAS DONE AT RE.1/- PER METER. AS STA TED BY THE A. O. THAT THE BILLS OF JULY SHOW THAT THE B ILLS HAD DESCRIPTION AS DYED CLOTH AND, THEREFORE, IT CLEARL Y IS DYEING WORK AND NOT MEREL8YTHE WHITEWASH WORK. THE TABLE OF PRODUCTION AND JOB CHARGES FOR VARIOUS MON THS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- MONTH PRODUCTION (MTS) JOB CHARGES (RS.) JOB CHARGES/ MTR. (RS.) APRIL04 485000 2312960 4.77 MAY04 504500 2347964 4.65 JUNE04 532700 2338628 4.39 JULY04 818000 1119054 1.37 AUGUST04 424300 2393567 5.64 SEPTEMBER04 404900 2219675 5.48 OCTOBER04 396200 2081666 5.25 NOVEMBER04 357500 2181976 6.10 DECEMBER04 409100 2190043 5.35 JANUARY05 531900 3321643 6.24 FEBRUARY05 493200 3078852 6.24 MARCH05 503800 3240284 6.43 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN THE MONTH OF JU LY THE APPELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY SUPPRESSED ITS INCOM E AND NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS PROVIDED. THEREFORE , IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY AND CONSC IOUSLY SUPPRESSED THIS RECEIPT AS STATED BY THE A. O. AND PENALTY LEVIED BY HIM IS CONFIRMED. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 4 MERELY BECAUSE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGED THE QUAN TUM ADDITION IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IS NO GROUND TO L EVY PENALTY U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE IT ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONT ENTION SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJENDRA KUMAR VS ITO 94 TTJ 280 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UND ER: CONCLUSION: PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1) (C) COULD NOT B E LEVIED SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS, EVEN THOUG H THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITIONS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FILING OF INACCURATE INCOME. SHE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE BOGUS. SHE HAS REFERRE D TO THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE EXPLAINED THIS ISSUE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE AO AND TH E AO CALLED FOR EXPLANATION FROM 12 PARTIES WHO HAVE ACCEPTED THE W ORK DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED THEIR CONTRA ACCOUNT. ALL THE PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND HAVE ADMITTED IN THEIR STATEMEN TS ABOUT RATE OF RE.1/- PER METER FOR DYEING. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTI CULARS BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO FILED BONA FIDE EXPLANATION WHICH WAS S UPPORTED BY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE ESTIM ATED ADDITION IS MADE BY APPLYING A COMPARABLE CASE IS NO GROUND TO LEVY PENALTY. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SINCE NOT FOUND FALSE OR BOGUS, THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 5 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT NOW MENS ERA I S NOT REQUIRED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES & PROCESSORS LTD., 306 ITR 277 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT WILLFUL CONCEALMENT NOR REQUIRED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IT BEING CIVIL LIABIL ITY, PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DETAILS OF SUPPRESSION OF JOB CHARGES AND IT WAS FOUND THAT TH E JOB CHARGES IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2004 WERE LESSER AS COMPARED TO OTHER MONTHS BECAUSE IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2004 THE JOB CHARGES HAVE BEEN SHOWN AT RS.1.37 PER METER. BUT IN THE OTHER MONTHS, HIGH ER JOB CHARGES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED FOR AND THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BILLS FOR THE MONTH O F JULY, 2004 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CHARGED JOB CHARGES AT RE.1/- PE R METER. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT IN THIS MONTH THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED LOSSES. THEREFORE, SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE MATTER AND CONFIRMATION FROM 12 PARTIES WERE CALLED FOR BY THE AO REGARDING THE CLOTH RETURNED AFTER WHITEWASH, NO FU RTHER PROCESS WAS DONE FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE REASONS WHY THE CLOTHES ASKED FOR PARTLY PROCESSED AND SAME WERE NOT GIVEN FOR RE- PROCESSING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE EX PLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT COST PER METER IN OTHER MONTHS W AS THE CHARGES OF FULL DYEING AND PRINTING WORK BUT IN THE MONTH OF J ULY, 2004 ONLY WHITEWASH WORK WAS DONE FOR WHICH RATE WAS RS.1.17 PER METER AND THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED LOSS OF RE.0.17 PER METER. IT WAS FURTHER ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 6 EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF LONG TERM BUSINESS RELATION CONDUCTED THE SAME ACTIVITY. THE AO, THERE FORE, CALLED FOR COMPLETE DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE AND REQUESTED THE AS SESSEE TO PROVIDE LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM BILLS OF RE.1/- PER METER W AS MADE WITH QUANTITY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PROVIDED THE LIST OF PARTIES TO WHOM BILLING OF WHITE WASH CHARGES WAS MADE BY CHARGING RE.1/- PER METER IN RESPECT OF 104 PARTIES WHICH IS REPRODUCED BY TH E AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 14 TO 16. THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS DOING THE ACTIVITY OF DYEING AND PRINTING SINCE ITS INCEPTION AND LATER ON SHIFTED T O EXCLUSIVE PRINTING ACTIVITY BUT UNLUCKILY COULD NOT RUN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOOK THE CHANCE FOR SOME BLEACHING BUSINESS WHICH W AS ALSO NOT FRUITFUL; THEREFORE, IT WAS STOPPED IN AUGUST, 2004 . THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT IN THIS ACTIVITY THE ASSE SSEE SUFFERED LOSSES AND ALSO REFERRED TO STATEMENT OF VARIOUS PARTIES R ECORDED BY THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED GIVING CLOTH S TO THE ASSESSEE FOR DYEING WORK AND THAT SOME OF THE PARTIES HAVE E VEN ADMITTED ONLY RE.1/- PER METER FOR DYEING CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE F URTHER EXPLAINED THAT WHEN ALMOST ALL THE CUSTOMERS HAVE CONFIRMED J OB CHARGES @ RE.1/- PER METER IN THE INDEPENDENT INQUIRY CONDUCT ED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE SAME, THEREF ORE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISBELIEVED. T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE AO WAS HOWEVER, NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY MUST HAVE CARRIED OUT DYEING JOB WORK TO CLAIM AS WHITEWASH JOB WORK TO JUSTIFY THE RATE OF RE.1/- PER METER. THE AO CONSIDERED THE RATE OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE M/S. JAGDAMBA ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 7 PRINTERS PVT. LTD. AND MADE THE ADDITION. CONSIDER ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND IT TO BE A FIT CASE FOR LEVYING PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY DISCLOSED ALL THE PARTICULA RS BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR CHARGING OF LESS ER RATE IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2004. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES WH O WERE EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. BUT THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE CARR IED OUT JOB WORK BUT CLAIMED WHITEWASH JOB CHARGES TO SHOW LOWE R JOB CHARGE RATE. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONCRETE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE AO MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION BY APPLYING COMPARABLE CASE, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AP PEARS TO BE BONA FIDE AND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT FOUND TO BE BOGUS OR FALSE. PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ONLY IN RESPECT OF JOB CHARGES IN THE MONTH OF JULY, 2004, BUT PROFIT RATE SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS REASONABLE AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M. M. RICE MILLS, 253 ITR 17 HELD AS UNDER: MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE TO INCOME UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 145(1) OF THE I NCOME- TAX ACT, 1961, BY ADOPTING THE VIEW THAT THE GROSS PROFIT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS TOO LOW AS THERE WERE DEFECTS IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED IT WOU LD NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 8 FAILURE TO RETURN THE CORRECT INCOME BY MEANS OF FR AUD OR GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THA T NO SALES/EXCESS STOCK OF KHUDI PHAK WAS DETECTED OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AND THAT AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE BY APPLYING THE PROVISO TO SECTION 145(21) COULD NO T BE MADE THE BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1) ( C). THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THIS. ON APPEAL : HELD, THAT THE CONCURRENT VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUN AL REPRESENTED THE CORRECT POSITION OF LAW AND THERE W AS NO VALID GROUND TO ENTERTAIN THE APPEAL. 6.1 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 323 ITR 158 (SC) HELD AS U NDER: A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY , THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1) (C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HEL D GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORD ER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 9 BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, T HE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETA ILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EX ACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS . WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORREC T OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) ( C ). A MERE MAKING O F A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, W ILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIG H COURT AFFIRMED. 6.2 THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. R AJASTHAN SPINNING & WEAVING MILLS 2009 TIOL 63 SC HELD THAT ON EVERY DEMAND PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED ABOVE , IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE FILED PROPER EX PLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BUT ON MERE DIFFERENCE OF OP INION THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY R ELYING UPON A COMPARABLE CASE MADE ESTIMATED ADDITION. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INC OME OR FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE ACCORDINGLY, S ET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY. ITA NO.388/AHD/2009 CHINTAN PROCESSORS PVT. LTD. VS ITO, WARD-1, SURAT 10 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-06-2011 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 24-06-2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 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 D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD