Rajbir Singh Walia, Chandigarh V. DCIT, C-I(I), Chandigarh

ITA 413/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8324 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: S K BHASIN
• Keywords: Earning of tax free income; Proportionate interest; Commercial expediency
• Section: 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE: SH. SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 59/CHD/2015 & ITA NO. 413/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI RAJBIR SINGH WALIA, HOUSE NO. 336, SECTOR 9-D, CHANDIGARH. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 1(1), CHANDIGARH. ./ PAN NO: AAAPW8792P / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.K.BHASIN # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2018 '()* ! &/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.12.2018 (*/ ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE SAME ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CHANDIGARH, [IN SHORT AS CIT(A )]. WHILE THE APPEAL IN ITA 59/CHD/2015 IS IN RELATION TO THE QUA NTUM PROCEEDINGS AND IS AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT( A) DATED 31.10.2014, THE APPEAL IN ITA 413/CHD/2018 IS AGAIN ST THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IN AFFIRMING THE LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT CONSEQUENT TO THE ADDITIONS MA DE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 27.02.2018. SINCE BOTH THE ISSUES ARE INTER-RELATED, THEY WERE THEREFORE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR HEARING. ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 2 OF 9 2. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING IN THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN ITA 59/CHD/2015. HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1) THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH IS BAD IN LAW & ON FACTS. 2) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER PASSED BY AO IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC 14A AS THERE IS NO N EXUS BETWEEN EXEMPT INCOME AND INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 3) THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE OR DER PASSED BY AO REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1) (IN) AS FUND HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THERE IS NO DIVERSION OF FUNDS. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROU ND OF APPEAL. 3. THE GROUND NOS. 1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO. 2 DEALS WITH THE ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE MADE IN RELATION TO EARNING OF EXEMPT INCOME U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE TOTAL INVESTMENTS OF RS. 24,56,448/- IN SHARES O F VARIOUS COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) NOTED THAT INTEREST OF RS . 30,52,044/- HAD BEEN DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND SO HE QUESTIONED THE ASSESSEE ABO UT DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD N OT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE EXEMPT INCOME BUT THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, M ADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,09,084/- U/S 14A READ WITH RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1 962. 5. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE SO MADE. 6. BEFORE US, ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT IT HAD BEEN POINTED OUT TO THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUF FICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE INVEST MENTS CALLING FOR NO ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 3 OF 9 DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AT ALL. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE CAPITAL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS AT THE END OF THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. ON 31.03.2011 WAS RS. 27,39,16,0 07/- AND THE PROFITS EARNED DURING THE YEAR AMOUNTED TO RS. 13,71,78,938 /-. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 91 TO 1 11 REFLECTING THE ABOVE FIGURES. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IN EARLIER YEARS, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. O UR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THIS FACT AS UNDER : F. Y. CAPITAL AS ON PROFIT FOR THE YEAR 31 ST MARCH 2007-08 RS. 776.37 LACS RS. 173.26 LA CS (PAGE NO. 42 OF PAPER BOOK) 2008-09 RS. 683.21 LACS RS. 0.50 LACS (PAGE NO. 53 OF PAPER BOOK ) 2009-10 RS. 1762.41 LACS RS. 1019.06 LACS (PAGE NO. 71 OF PAPER BOOK) 2010-11 RS. 2739.16 LACS RS. 1371.79 LACS (PAGE NO. 92 OF PAPER BOOK) 7. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS HDFC BANK LTD. ITA NO. 3 30 OF 2012 HAS HELD THAT, 'NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF I NTEREST PAID ON BORROWING IF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS'. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE UTILITIES & POWER LTD. 313 ITR 340 AND THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SUZLON ENERGY LTD. TAX APPEAL NO. 223 OF 2013 . THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CON TENDED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INVESTMENTS MADE IN SHARES OF RS. 24.56 LACS, ONLY INVESTMENTS OF RS. 4.24 LACS WERE CAPABLE OF EARNING DIVIDEND, WHILE THE REST WERE NON- DIVIDEND PAYING COMPANIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE O F THE PROMOTER AS WELL AS DIRECTOR AND NOT INVESTOR. DETAIL OF THE IN VESTMENTS MADE WAS FILED BEFORE US AS UNDER: A. TCS RS. 1,23,250 ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 4 OF 9 B. ROLTA RS. 341.65 C. DSQ SOFTWARE RS. 5180.79 D. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC RS. 2,95,246.32 E. DIVINE DISTRIBUTORS PVT. LTD. RS. 5,93,430/- F. HORIZON FINCAP LTD RS. 14,39,000/- 8. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT OUT OF THE ABOVE, ONLY INVESTME NT OF RS. 4.24 LACS IN SHARES OF LISTED COMPANIES WERE CAPABLE OF EARNING DIVIDEND. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IN ANY CASE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES WAS TO BE WORKED OUT ONLY IN RELATION TO T HOSE INVESTMENTS AS PER RULE 8D(2)(II). IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD IN ANY CASE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS. 30,000/ - DURING THE YEAR AND THE DISALLOWANCE COULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED THE SAI D AMOUNT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE CHANDIGARH BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE & MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. IN ITA NO. 548/CHD/2011 IN SUPPORT OF THIS PR OPOSITION. 9. THE ID. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CONTENDING THAT THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTI ON COULD NOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE EXPLICIT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 8D. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY P ERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO DISALLOWAN CE U/S 14A WAS WARRANTED IN THE PRESENT CASE UNDER RULE 8D(2)(II) ON ACCOUNT OF SUFFICIENCY OF OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WI TH THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT THE OWN FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSEE IN THE FORM OF PROFITS MADE DURING THE YEAR WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13.71 CR AND IN THE FORM OF SHARE CAPITAL, TO THE TUNE OF RS. 27 .39 CR, WHILE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF COMPANIES, AMOUNTED TO A MERE RS. 24.56 ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 5 OF 9 LACS, IS NOT DISPUTED. IN THE FACE OF THE SAID FACT AND CONSIDERING THE POSITION OF LAW IN THIS REGARD LAID DOWN BY VARIOUS COURTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAS E OF HDFC BANK LTD. (SUPRA) AND RELIANCE UTILITIES (SUPRA), NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 14 A COULD BE MADE- OF INTEREST WHERE SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS ARE AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DELETE THE DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST MADE BY APPLYING RULE 8D(2)(II) IN THE PRESENT CASE . 11. AS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES MADE AS PER RULE 8D(2)(III) OF THE ACT, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT FIRSTLY THE DISALLOWANCE IN ANY C ASE CANNOT EXCEED THE QUANTUM OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE GROUP OF CASES WITH THE LEAD CASE BEING MAXOPP INVESTMENT LTD. VS CIT IN C. NO. 104-109 OF 2015 DT.12- 02-2018 DEALT WITH THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF PATIALA ALSO WHEREIN IT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB 85 HARYANA HIGH COURT R ESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF EXEMPT INCOME EARNED. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE SAID CASE IS AS UNDER : 8. ' 40. WE NOTE FROM THE FACTS IN THE STATE BANK OF PAT IALA CASES THAT THE AO, WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAD ALR EADY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXE MPT INCOME BY APPLYING THE FORMULA CONTAINED IN RULE 8D OF THE RULES AND H OLDING THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABLE. IN SPITE OF THIS EX ERCISE OF APPORTIONMENT OF EXPENDITURE CARRIED OUT BY THE AO, CIT(A) DISALLOWE D THE ENTIRE DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE. THAT VIEW OF THE CIT (A) WAS CLEARLY U NTENABLE AND RIGHTLY SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT. THEREFORE, ON FACTS, THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS ARRIVED AT A CORRECT CONCLUSION BY AFFIRMING TH E VIEW OF THE IT AT' 12. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE HELD THAT THE DISALLOWA NCE, IN ANY CASE, CANNOT EXCEED THE EXEMPT INCOME WHICH UNDISPU TEDLY IS RS. 30,000/- BY WAY OF DIVIDEND. FURTHER, WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE ID. ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 6 OF 9 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT EVEN WHILE APPLYING R ULE 8D(2)(III), ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE EARNED DIVIDEND INCOME DURING THE YEAR HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACTION WHILE APPLYING THE STIPULATI NG AFFIRMATION. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACB LTD. VS ACIT IN ITA NO.615/2014 DT.24-03-15, HAS CATEGORICALLY LAID DOW N THIS PROPOSITION HOLDING AS UNDER : 'THE AO, INSTEAD OF ADOPTING THE AVERAGE VALUE OF I NVESTMENT OF -WHICH INCOME IS NOT PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME I.E. THE VALUE OF T AX EXEMPT INVESTMENT, CHOSE TO FACTOR IN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT ITSELF. EVE N THOUGH THE CIT(APPEALS) NOTICED THE EXACT VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT WHICH YIE LDED TAXABLE INCOME, HE DID NOT CORRECT THE ERROR BUT CHOSE TO APPLY HIS OW N EQUITY. GIVEN THE RECORD THAT HAD TO BE DONE SO TO SUBSTITUTE THE FIGURE OF 38,61,09,287/- WITH THE FIGURE OF3,53,26,800/- AND THEREAFTER ARRIVE AT THE EXACT DISALLOWANCE OF .05%. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONING, THE FINDINGS OF THE IT AT AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED' 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 14A READ WITH SECTION 8D(2)( II) IS TO BE DELETED SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR THE PURPO SE OF MAKING THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENTS WHILE THE DISALLOWANCE OF OTHER EXPENSES UN DER RULE 8D(2)(III) IS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF EXE MPT INCOME EARNED AND IS TO BE WORKED OUT BY CONSIDERING ONLY THOSE INVESTME NTS WHICH HAVE EARNED EXEMPT INCOME DURING THE YEAR. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT BRIEFLY STATED T HE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED INTEREST OF RS. 30,52,044/- TO THE PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,81,59,583/- IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND ITS DEVELOPMENT IN ZIRAKPUR . THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS INVESTMENT WAS NOT FOR BUSINE SS CONSIDERATION OR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 7 OF 9 DISALLOW PROPORTIONATE INTEREST @ 12% ON THE INVEST MENT SO MADE WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 15. BEFORE US, ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT IT HAD SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT IN THE FORM OF PROFITS FOR THE YEAR BEIN G RS. 13.171 CR AND OWN CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS. 27.39 CR AND THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT WAS WARRANTED . RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT, LUDHIANA VS RAKESH GUPTA IN ITA 37/2014 AND ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES PVT. LTD. VS CIT(CENTRAL) LUDHIANA IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 514 OF 2008. 16. THE ID. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES STATING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAD BEEN RIGHTLY MADE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE COMMERCIAL E XPEDIENCY FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE ARE IN AG REEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST WAS WARRANTED IN THE PRESENT CAS E IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS WHICH FAR EXCEEDED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN LAND AND THE PRESUMPTION IN SUCH CASE WAS THAT THE OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT. T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED PROFITS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 13.71 CR . DURING THE YEAR IS NOT DISPUTED AND ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE IS THE FACT THAT THE INVESTMENT IN LAND AMOUNTED TO RS. 1.81 CR. THEREFORE, THE AVAILABILITY OF OWN INT EREST FREE FUNDS WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT IS E STABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT. FURTHER, WE AGREE WITH THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 8 OF 9 THE JUDICIAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD AS LAID DOWN BY THE JU RISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAKESH GUPTA (SUPRA) AND BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLES (SUPRA) IS THAT WH ERE SUFFICIENT OWN FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE, IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE SAME H AVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THERE IS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT AND THE E NTIRE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 I S, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. IN A FACT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED . 19. WE SHALL NOW TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE IN ITA 413/CHD/2018. PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED FOR CONCEALING/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME RELATING TO THE TWO ADDITIONS MADE U/S 14A AND U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION M ADE U/S 36(L)(III) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE OF INTEREST U/S 14A AMOUNTING TO RS. 17,78,886/-, NO PENALTY SURVIVES IN RELATION TO THE SAME. AS FOR THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE UNDER RULE 8(D)(2)(III) OF THE RULES, THE SAME HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY US TO BE RE- WORKED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ONLY THOSE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE YIELDED D IVIDEND INCOME SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION OF THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF DIVIDEND INCOME EARNED. THE PENALTY, THEREFORE, AT MOST SURVIVES ONLY ON THIS DISALLOWANCE UPHELD. BUT EVEN THE SAME IS NOT LEVIABLE SINCE UNDISPUTED LY ALL PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE EXPENSES WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWING CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING RULE PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW IN THIS REGARD THAT THE ADDITION WAS ITA - 59/CHD/2015 & ITA -413/CHD/2018 PAGE 9 OF 9 MADE. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BE CHARGED WITH HAVING CONCEALED/FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE IS ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, ITA 59/CHD/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D AND ITA 413/CHD/2018 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.12.2018 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( $ % & '# ) (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUP TA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR