Shri Rajyavardhan Singh, Indore V. THE ACIT CIRCLE 5(1), Indore

ITA 420/IND/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6187 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T N UNNI; P NAMBIYAR A RS
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 54F; 68; 148; 54; 132; 92; 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.420 & 421/IND/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH , T.N. UNNI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, 402, ALANKAR POINT, GITA BHAWAN SQUARE, A.P. ROAD, INDORE / VS. A CIT - 5(1) , INDORE ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. ALWPS3256M APPELLANT BY SHRI T.N. UNNI & P. NAMBIYAR , A RS RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHIMA GUPTA , CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING: 26.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.01.2019 / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM AND PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS RESPECTIVELY, PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 20 09-10, AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, INDORE BOTH DATED 27.03.2017. BOT H APPEALS WERE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 2 FIRST, WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.421/I ND/2017 PERTAINING TO QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA L: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SALE PRICE OF THE APPEL LANT'S LAND AT NARSINGHARH KOTHI, 1, KANADIA ROAD, INDORE AT RS. 3,86,10,000/- MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ORIGINAL S TATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. NAVIN MALDE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN RELYING ON THE ORIGINAL STATEM ENT OF BROKER MR. NAVIN MALDE WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE DEALT WITH THE SALE AS BROKER AND IN NOT CONSIDERING STATEMENT OF THE CROS S EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANT COUNSEL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SHRI NAVIN MALDE HAS RECONFIR MED DURING CROSS EXAMINATION THAT HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 20 LAKHS OUT OF RS. 27 LAKSHS WHICH WAS @ 2% OF THE ACTUAL SALES CONSID ERATION AND IN CONFIRMING THE ALLEGED SALE PRICE AT RS. 27 CRORES AS ADOPTED BY THE LD. A.O. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF S HRI NAVIN MALDE DURING HIS CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE APPELLANT 'S COUNSEL WHERE IN HE HAS CONFIRMED/ STATEMENT AS UNDER :- I) THAT HE HAS STUDIED UPTO CLASS S' ONLY WHICH PROVES THAT HE CANNOT ARITHMETICALLY EXTRAPOLATE A PERCENTAGE OF B ROKERAGE IN TO THE TOTAL SALE PRICE. II) THAT HE CONFIRMS THAT THE TAKES 2% BROKERAGE F ROM THE SELLER FOR HIMSELF ALONE ON THE SALE PRICE AS PER T HE SALE DEED AND THAT SIMILAR BROKERAGE WAS ALSO TAKEN BY SHRI S ANJAY BADJATIYA. III) THAT E DID NOT KNOW THE PURCHASER SHRI SHARAD DOSHI AND HE HAS NOT MET HIM AT ANY TIME. IV) THAT THE DEAL OF NARSINGARH KOTHI WAS ACTUALLY DONE BY SHRI SANJAY BADJATIYA, BROKER. V) THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN SHRI SHARAD DOSHI WAS SHOWN AROUND THE NARSINGHARH KOTHI WHICH WAS DONE BY SHRI SANJAY BADJATIYA. SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 3 VI) THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS 'PLOT WITH THE BUILDING' OR AS 'PLOT ONLY' AFTER DE MOLISHING THE BUILDING WHICH SHOWS HIS IGNORANCE ABOUT THE SALE P RICE. VII) THAT HE DID NOT KNOW WHAT WERE THE SHARES OF SMT. LAXMI KUMARI AND THE APPELLANT IN THE SALE PRICE WHICH SH OWS THAT HE WAS UNAWARE OF THE SALE PRICE RECEIVED BY THE APPEL LANT. VIII) THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE AREA OF THE PRO PERTY WHICH HE THOUGHT WAS 55000 SQ.FT. WHEREAS ACTUALLY IT WAS 84 ,438 SQ.FT WHICH SHOWED HIS COMPLETE IGNORANCE ABOUT THE PROPE RTY. IX) THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THE SALE DEED AND W AS NOT PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE REGISTRATION. X) THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE FINALIZATION OF THE DEAL AS ONLY MR. SANJAY BADJATIYA WAS AWARE OF THAT. XI) THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT WHEN THE PURCHASER MA DE THE PAYMENT TO THE SELLER THAT HIS ONLY FUNCTION THAT O F A 'INFORMER', TO THE REAL BROKER FOR WHICH HE WAS RECEIVED 2 % COMMISSION- WHICH PROVES THAT THE REAL BROKER SHRI SANJAY BADJA TIYA WAS ALSO PAID 2 % COMMISSION FOR THE ENTIRE DEAL DON THROUGH HIM. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND OVERLOOKED THE FACT THAT S INCE THERE WERE TWO BROKERS, BOTH OF THEM WERE PAID 2 % COMMISSION IN ROUND FIGURES TOTALING RS. 40 LAKHS WHICH WAS CLAIM ED BY THE SMT. LAXMI KUMARI IN HER ASSESSMENT AND ALLOWED BY THE A.A. IN HER ASSESSMENT. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TOT AL SALE PRICE CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE CIT (A) WAS WRONG AN D WAS RS. 12,39,95,000/- AS PER REGD. SALE DEED, FOR WHICH TH E APPELLANT ALSO RELIES ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 91 & 92 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,16,400 /- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SECTION 54F, RS. L1.11LAKHS ON A CCOUNT OF 50 C AND RS. 28.73 ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 68 AS PER HIS PREDESSOR'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO.IT /783/11-12 DATED 28.02.2014, AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL BEARING NO. ITA/379/IN D/2014 IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 4 ERRED IN NOT MAKING A SPEAKING ORDER IN VIEW OF HIS IGNORING THE REVELATION MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NAVIN MALD E DURING HIS CROSS EXAMINATION. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION 4 OF SECTION 54 F AS PER WHICH, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSM ENT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 10. THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO ALTER, TO AMEND, TO DELETE T HE ABOVE GROUNDS AS AND WHEN OCCASION ARISES. 2. BRIEF FACTS, GIVING RISE TO PRESENT APPEAL ARE T HAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 05.12.2011. THERE BY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT AO) ASSESSED INCOME A T RS. 98,08,670/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED AND THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER D ATED 18.03.2016. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.4,21,48 ,020/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME AT RS.9,70,275/-. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 3,83,04,740/- FURTHER MADE ADDITION AS PER THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) OF RS.28,73,000/-. 3. AGAINST THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, CONFI RMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER AP PEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN BRIEF SUBMISSION S. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER; 1. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF A PPEALS BEFORE SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 5 THE CIT{A) AND THE ITAT. THE POINTS INVOLVED WERE: (I) CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F , (II) WHETHER THE AMOUNT PAID TO THE CONTRACTOR/BUIL DER WAS UTILIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS (III) WHETHER CAPITAL GAINS WERE ASSESSABLE IN A.Y . 2009-1O'OR 2012-13. (IV) WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ENHANCING THE INCOME U/S. 251(2). (V) APPLICABILITY OF SEX. 50 TO SALE OF LEASEHOLD P ROPERTY. (VI) CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK A/C TOTAL: RS. 28.73 LA KHS. 1.2. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE MOST OF THE ABO VE POINTS VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 379/IND/17 T. 23-03-2018, AND RESTO RED IT TO THE CIT(A). THE CIT{A) HAS NOW FIXED THE HEARING ON 11- 01-2019. 2. ITA NO. 421/ITA/17 IS AGAINST THE C1T(A)'S ORDER IN APPEAL NO. IT- 12/16-17/355 DT. 27-03-2017 DT. 18-03-2016. THE ASS ESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/S. 147 BY NOTICE U/S. 148 WHICH WAS ISSU ED IN THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI NAVIN MALDE, A PRO PERTY BROKER, U/S. 132 DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SHRI SHARAD DOSHI, BUILDER, AND HIS GROUP, RECODED BY THE ADI ON 28-02-2 014. THE REASON RECORDED IS AT PAGE 08-09 OF PB. 3. THUS, ADMITTEDLY, THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WA S MADE ON THE STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY. THE 1 ST GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 421/IND/2017 ON THIS POINT. AMONG OTHER POINTS, THE WITNESS HAS ARITHMETICALLY EXTRAPOLATED HIS BROKERAGE COMMISSION 2% TO AN ABSOLUTE FIGURE OF SALE PRICE OF RS. 27.00 CRS. IN RESPECT OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 4. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELL ANT'S COUNSEL WAS PERMITTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI NAVIN MALDE. COP Y OF HIS STATEMENT IS AT PP. 25-29 OF THE PB. HE DENIED AND CO NTRADICTED THE AVERMENTS MADE BY HIM AT THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 2 8-02-2014. 5.THE A.O., HOW-EVER, REJECTED THE WITNESS' STATEMEN T AT CROSS EXAMINATION AND TERMED IT AS HIS 'RE-CONFIRMATION' OF HIS OLD STATEMENT. HE MADE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATE MENT ON 28-02- 2014. 7. THE CIT(A) HAS, WITHOUT EVENING THROUGH THE TWO STATEMENTS, MECHANICALLY CONFIRMED THE 'RECONFIRMATION AND THE WH OLE RE- ASSESSMENT, PARTICULARLY, THAT SHRI MALDE BEING A S' CLASS DROP OUT, IS NOT EXPECTED TO POSSESS THE SKILL OF ARITHMETIC E XTRAPOLATION. 8. THE SPECIFIC POINTS OF SHRI MALDE'S DENIALS AND RE VELATIONS ARE STATED IN GR. NO.4. 9. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION, SHRI SHARAD DOSHI'S GROUP PRODUCED AN AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY SHR I NAVIN SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 6 MALDE, IN WHICH HE RETRACTED HIS ORIGINAL STATEMENT AND MAINTAINED HIS STATEMENT AT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION U/R. 29 ON 27-07-201 8. 10. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ITS ORDER O N 29-09- 2017. THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS AS APPLICABLE TO THE AP PELLANT'S SE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE SYNOPSIS FILED ON 30-07-2015. ( PAGE 244). 11. THE APPELLANT PLEADS THAT THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT BY SHRI NAVIN MALDE, A TH IRD PARTY, IS NOT GOOD IN LAW AND THE ADDITION MADE ON THAT BASIS DESERVE S TO BE DELETED. 12. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING CASE-LAW S: (1) SHARAD U. MISHRA VS. DCLT (JP.) PB: 128-134 @ 1 32. (2) PARSHWANATH CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO (24 ITJ 409 (I ND.) PB: 231-243 13. APPELLANT ALSO RELIES ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECS . 91 & 92 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT. (PB 140-146) 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE AN APPLICATION FOR PR ODUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED IS AN AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE SHRI NAVIN MALDE W HICH IS DULY NOTARIZED. 6. LD. CIT-DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS AND ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, ADMITTEDLY LD. DR COU LD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORI GINAL ORDER IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ALL THE ISSUES RELATED TO THE REOP ENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WERE ALSO SUBJECT MATTER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE MATTER RELATED TO ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT TRAVELLED UP TO THE STAGE OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLEASED TO RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNS EL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FIXED HEARING OF APPEAL ON 11 TH JANUARY 2019. SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 7 AFTER CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND THE FAC T THAT ORDER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF TH E LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH. AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE BROKER ON THE BASIS OF HI S STATEMENT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH. GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. NOW WE TAKE, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITANO.420/IND/201 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN AGREEING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. PRED ECESSOR AND IN HOLDING THAT: I) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80 LAKHS GIVEN BY THE APPELL ANT AS ADVANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AND AS NO OTHER AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM EITHER BEFORE THE FINANCIAL YEAR OR BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN AS MANDATED BY THE PROVISION OF S ECTION 54 F. II) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 80 LAKHS WAS MERELY TR ANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S . III) THAT THE PENALTY IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIABLE O N THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE A.O. AND ENHANCED BY THE LD. PREDESSOR OF CIT (A). D.S. ENTERPRISES AND IT WAS MERELY LYING IN THEIR B ANK ACCOUNT AND THUS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UTILIZATION TOW ARDS CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 11.11. LAKHS WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AS DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN SALE PRICE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND THE VALUATION ADOP TED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS CLEARLY ' FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME' AS MANDATORY BY SECTION 50 C AND THAT THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED ON THIS AMOUNT IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIABLE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING:- I) THE CASH DEPOSITED ON DIFFERENCE DATES ALLEGEDLY EX PLAINED IN SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 8 PARA 3 OF P.NO. 2 OF THE PENALTY ORDER WERE NOT FOU ND TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT BY THE LD. PREDESSOR FOR WHICH HE WAS E XPLAINED THE FULL REASON. II) THAT HE IS IN COMPLETE CONFORMITY WITH THE OR DER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) AND IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 27 1 (1) ( C) IS COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ADDITION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING AS UNDER: I) AS CIT (A), MY POWER TO NOT ONLY CO-TERMINUS WITH T HAT OF THE AO BUT I ALSO HAVE THE POWER TO REMOVE ANY DEFICIEN CY OCCURRED AT THE STAGE OF AO. THEREFORE I HAVE THE OPTION EIT HER TO SEPARATELY IMPOSE A PENALTY ON THE AMOUNT OF ENHANC EMENT DONE BY MY LD. PREDECESSOR OR BASED ON THE ABOVE DI SCUSSION IN WHICH I HAVE JUSTIFIED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON EVERY ADDITION MADE BY EITHER THE AO OR BY THE LD. CIT (A ) CONFIRM THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED BY THE AO. I CHOOSE LATE AND HER EBY CONFIRM THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED BY THE RS. 60 LACS BY THE A. O. THUS. THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS HEREBY CONFIRMED UNDER THE POWER S GRANTED TO THE UNDERSIGNED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. II) THE APPELLANT ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT (A) DIS MISS THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.AO U/S. 271 (1) (C) OF THE ACT, IS GROSSLY ERRONEOUS, BAD IN LA W AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) PAS SED BY THE LD. AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, AS HE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DEAL WITH THE ALLEGED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 8. SINCE, WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS FOR A DECISION AFRESH TO THE LD. CIT(A) , THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO S ET ASIDE AND THE GROUNDS ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO D ECIDE AFRESH. GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. SHRI RAJYAVARDHAN SINGH 9 9 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITAN O.420 & /IND/2017 & ITANO.421/IND/2017 ARE ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 .01. 2019. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 22 /01/2019 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUA RD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE