Addl. CIT, Noida V. Shri Ved Prakash Sachdeva Prop., Noida

ITA 4015/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69629 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 31-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V S RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.4015/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS VED PRAK ASH SACHDEVA RANGE, NOIDA, 2 ND FLOOR, PROP. M/S SAM OVERSEAS, G-BLOCK, SHOPPING COMPLEX, B -83, SECTOR-83, SECTOR-20, NOIDA-201301 NOIDA. (PAN: ABDPS5802N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI V.S. RASTOGI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA, SR. DR O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-GHAZIABAD DATED 01.06 .2011 IN APPEAL NO. 10/2008-09/GZB-NOIDA FOR AY 2003-04 BY WHICH PE NALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 26.3.2008 HAS BEEN H ELD TO BE UNSUSTAINABLE AND PENALTY IMPOSED THEREIN HAS BEEN DELETED. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEREAS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AT THE LEVEL OF ITA T. ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 2 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D WHEREAS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 'AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF' HAD BEEN MADE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN ADVANC ES TO M/S A.M. IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S DAUGHTER MRS. A NJU SHARMA AND SON IN LAW SHRI MUKESH SHARMA WERE PARTNERS AND ALSO THE SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESEE COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE NEXUS BETWEEN ADVANCEMENT OF LOAN FOR THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. LA TER ON, THIS AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WAS WRITTEN OFF, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTIC ULARS OF HIS INCOME. 3. THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (APPEALS) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE SET AS IDE AND THE ORDER OF AO BE RESTORED. 3. APROPOS GROUNDS AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE, THE LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHEREAS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. THE DR FURTHER POI NTED OUT THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY WHEREAS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO M/S A.M. OVERSEAS IN WHICH THE ASSESSE ES DAUGHTER MRS. ANJU SHARMA AND SON-IN-LAW SHRI MUKESH SHARMA WERE PARTN ERS AND ALSO THEY ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 3 WERE SALARIED EMPLOYEES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DR VE HEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO THE FIRM OF DAU GHTER AND SON-IN-LAW COULD NOT ESTABLISH DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN ADVANCEMEN T OF IMPUGNED LOAN FOR THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DR AL SO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRITTEN OFF THIS ADVANCE AMOUNT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THE PENALTY ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. THE DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CITATIONS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE PRESENT CASE. 4. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS WRITTEN SYNOPSIS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS ON THREE COUNTS OUT OF WHICH TWO ADDITION S WERE DELETED BY ITAT IN ITA NO. 641/DEL/2007 VIDE ORDER DATED 23.10.2009 BY PARTLY ALLOWING APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AR FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT ONLY ONE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF WRITTEN OFF AMOUNTS RELA TED TO ADVANCE TO M/S A.M. OVERSEAS WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT MERE D ISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A BASIS TO IMPOSE P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 4 5. THE AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF KANCHENJUNGA ADVERTISING P. LT D. VS C.I.T. 340 ITR 595 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A WELL-SETTLED LEGAL POSI TION RELATING TO THE EXIGIBILITY OF THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT I N NATURE AND THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THOUGH MAY CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE, CANNOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING OF PENALTY. IN THIS JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT OF DELHI HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS EARLIER DECISIONS OF VARIOUS HIG H COURTS INCLUDING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) AND ITS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS ZOOM COMMUNICATION (2 010) 327 ITR 510 (DEL). THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THE JUDGMENT IN TH E CASE OF KANCHENJUNGA ADVERTISING P. LTD. VS C.I.T. (SUPRA) READS AS UNDER:- IT IS A WELL SETTLED POSITION THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT I N NATURE AND THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THOUGH MAY CONSTITUTE GOOD EVIDENCE, CANNOT CONSTIT UTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVYING PEN ALTY. (PLEASE SEE CIT V. ANWAR ALI (1970) 76 ITR 696, CIT V. KHODAY EASWARA AND SONS (1972) 83 ITR 369 (SC) AND ANANTHARAM VEERASINGHAIAM & CO. V. CIT (1980)123 IT R 457). IT IS ALSO WELL SETTLED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE MERE MAKING OF AN INCORRE CT CLAIM ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 5 DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE MA TERIAL AND RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO THE CLAIM AND HAS MA DE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE, BUT TAKES A LEGAL CONTENTION O R POSITION THAT A PARTICULAR RECEIPT IS NOT TAXABLE AS INCOME OR THAT A PARTICULAR EXPENDITURE OR LOSS IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDU CTION, THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK A DIFFERE NT VIEW OF THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE EXPENDITURE OR LOSS OR THE TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPT, WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE AND WITHOUT UNEA RTHING ANY NEW MATERIAL OR FACT KEPT BACK BY THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT INVITE PENALTY ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. REFERENCE IN THIS CONNECTION MAY BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- 1. CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, (1980)124 ITR 15 (SC) 2. ITO V. BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTING C O. OF INDIA LTD. (1987)163 ITR 496 (CAL) 3. DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO. LTD. V. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (1986)157 ITR 822 (DEL) 4. CIT V. G.D.NAIDU ( 1987) 165 ITR 63 (MADRAS) 17. IN A SERIES OF JUDGMENTS, THIS COURT HAS AFFIRM ED THE AFORESAID LEGAL POSITION AND THESE JUDGMENTS ARE :- 1. CIT V. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD. (2007) 288 ITR 585 2. CIT V. NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL (2007) 288 ITR 670 3. CIT V. INTERNATIONAL AUDIO VISUAL (2007) 288 ITR 570 IN CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD (2010) 322 ITR 158, THE SUPREME COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERM 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. IT WAS OBSERVED ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 6 THAT 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' MEANS THE DETAILS SUP PLIED IN THE RETURN WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR COR RECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH, OR ERRONEOUS. IT WAS HELD THAT MAKING A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, CANNOT, BY I TSELF, AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN IT BE HELD THAT MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW WOULD TANTAMO UNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, PROVIDED THE STATEMENT OR DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN FO UND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. EXPLAINING THE ABOVE DECISION, A DIVISION BENCH OF THIS COURT IN CIT V ZOOM COMMUNICATION P. LTD. (201 0) 327 ITR 510 HELD AS FOLLOWS: 'THE PROPOSITION OF LAW WHICH EMERGES FROM THIS CAS E, WHEN CONSIDERED IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE THE COURT, IS THAT SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONC EALED ANY MATERIAL FACT OR THE FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY H IM HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE INCORRECT, HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE T O IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT, EVEN IF THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN L AW, PROVIDED THAT HE EITHER SUBSTANTIATES THE EXPLANATI ON OFFERED BY HIM OR THE EXPLANATION, EVEN IF NOT SUBSTANTIATE D, IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE. IF THE EXPLANATION IS NEITHER SUBST ANTIATED NOR SHOWN TO BE BONAFIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C)WOULD COME IN TO PLAY AND THE ASSESSEE WIL L BE LIABLE TO FOR THE PRESCRIBED PENALTY.' IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THIS COURT AS UNDER (PAG E 518): 'IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING A CLAIM WHICH IS I NCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED T HAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONAFIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LAW IS MALAFIDE, ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 7 EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) WOULD COME INTO PLA Y AND WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMAL L PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NO T ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BUT IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BAS IS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAI M IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IF WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION O N WHICH IT COULD BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BO NAFIDE WHILE MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATURE, THAT WOULD GIV E A LICENCE TO UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES TO MAKE WHOLLY UN TENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BA SIS FOR MAKING THEM, IN THE HOPE THAT THEIR RETURN WOULD NO T BE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED O N THE BASIS OF SELF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF TH E ACT AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEY C AN GET AWAY MERELY BY PAYING THE TAX, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS PA YABLE BY THEM. THE CONSEQUENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PERSONS WHO MAKE CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE, ACTUATED BY A MALAFIDE INTEN TION TO EVADE TAX OTHERWISE PAYABLE BY THEM WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX LEGALLY PAYABLE BY THEM, IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD TAKE AWA Y THE DETERRENT EFFECT, WHICH THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE ACT HAVE.' IN THE ABOVE CASE BEFORE THIS COURT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INCOME-TAX PAID EVEN THOUGH SU CH DEDUCTION WAS STATUTORILY PROHIBITED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED WRITE OFF OF EQUIPMENT AS REVENUE LOSS. BOT H THE CLAIMS WERE FOUND TO BE SO UNTENABLE AS TO FALL WIT HIN THE ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 8 MISCHIEF OF THE EXPRESSION 'FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS'. A LINE OF DISTINCTION THUS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN ZOOM COMMUNICATION (SUPRA) SO AS TO PREVEN T MISINTERPRETATION OF THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA). IN OUR VIEW, THE PR ESENT CASE FALLS WITHIN THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN ZOOM COMMUNICATIONS (SUPRA) AND NOT UNDER THAT OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA), AS THE FOLLOWING DI SCUSSION WOULD SHOW. 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AN D CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE CITAT IONS RELIED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, WE OBSERVE THAT THE THREE PROPOSITIONS ADV ERTED UPON HIGHLIGHTED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE A S UNDER:- I) ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE F OR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. II) DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT CANNOT BE HELD T HAT IF ASSESSEE IS MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW, IT CO ULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PROVIDED THAT THE STATEMENT OF INCOME AND RELATED D ETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT OR BOGUS. ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 9 III) IT IS ALSO A WELL ACCEPTED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT MERE SUBMITTING A CLAIM WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW OR IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. IF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LA W IS ALSO MALAFIDE, THEN EXPLANATION 1 ATTACHED TO SECTION 27 1(1)(C) WOULD COME INTO PLAY AND WORK AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSEE WILL ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY. 7. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, DISALLOWANCE AN D ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT AG AINST THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN AS LOAN TO M/S A. M. OVERSEAS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSI NESS NEXUS, AS SUCH AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OF FICER IMPOSED PENALTY BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR WRITING OFF OF THE ADVANCE AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BONA FIDE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) AGAINST THE PENALTY O RDER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), FOLLOWING THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA), HELD THAT THE ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 10 MERE FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AL LOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, CANNOT LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO ON CAR EFUL READING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 23.10.09, WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE A NY FINDINGS THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE WRITTEN OFF AMOUN T ADVANCED TO M/S A.M. OVERSEAS WAS FALSE, BOGUS OR BASELESS. THEREFORE, THE FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ADVANCED LOAN TO M/S A.M. OVERSEAS OF RS. 25 LAKH AND SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS WRITTEN OFF BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM IN THIS REGARD WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED O UT UPTO ITAT, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. AT THE SAM E TIME, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO THE WRITTEN OFF AMOUNT WAS DISALLOWED UPTO THE LEVEL OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT T HE SAME WAS NEVER FOUND BOGUS, FALSE OR BASELESS BECAUSE THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW NEVER DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ACCEPTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE ADVANCED LOAN TO M/S O.M. OVERSEAS IN WHICH ASSESSEES DAUGHTER A ND SON-IN-LAW WERE PARTNERS AND ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS CONNECTION WI TH THIS FIRM. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER I MPOSED PENALTY ON WRONG SURMISES AND BASIS WHICH WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE ITA NO. 4015/DEL/2011 ASSTT.YEAR: 2002-03 11 OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS LTD. (SUPRA). THUS, WE A RE UNABLE TO FIND ANY PERVERSITY, AMBIGUITY, OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSIONS MADE H EREINABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMISSING GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 OF THE REVENUE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.11.2013. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 22ND NOVEMBER 2013 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR