ACIT, Vellore V. Sri Krishna Oil Stores, Tiruvannamalai

ITA 440/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7165 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHE NNAI . , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # # # # BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NOS.438, 439 AND 440/MDS/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, VELLORE. VS. M/S. SRI KRISHNA OIL STORES, NO. 112, KAMALA STREET, THIRUVANNAMALAI. [PAN : AAAFK3274C] ( $% $% $% $% /APPELLANT ) ( &'$% &'$% &'$% &'$% / RESPONDENT ) $% ( ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT &'$% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE ( * / DATE OF HEARING : 26.11.2014 +, ( * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2014 - - - - / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) VII, CHENNAI, DATED 10.10.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CONSISTING OF THREE PARTNERS AND DOING WHOLESALE AN D RETAIL TRADE IN EDIBLE OILS. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURCHASING EDIBLE OIL F ROM M/S. KALEESWARI I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 2 REFINERY PVT. LTD. AND ITS GROUP COMPANIES BY WAY O F CASH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE H AS FURNISHED DETAILS. BASED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, LETTERS WERE SENT TO THE PARTIES AND ALSO TO M/S. KALEESWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD. GROU P CONCERNS CALLING FOR DETAILS OF PURCHASE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AFTER RECEIVING REPLIES, FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED SOME PURCHASES FROM M/S. KALEESWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD GR OUP CONCERNS AND SUCH PURCHASES MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AMOUNTING TO .6,53,79,882/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A STATEMENT WAS RECORDED FR OM SHRI K. ARUMUGAM, MANAGING PARTNER. IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT, HE HAS INFORMED THAT THE ABOVE PURCHASES AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING SA LES ARE NOT RECORDED THROUGH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE FIRM. IT WAS STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GOODS ARE PUR CHASED AND SOLD IMMEDIATELY EITHER IN THE SAME DAY OR THE NEXT DAY. SINCE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT RECORDED THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, HE HAS AGREED TO DECLARE THE PEAK OF PURCHASES TO BE ADDED BACK T O THE TAXABLE INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE PEAK PURCHASES WERE WORKED OUT AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE PEAK PURCHASE OF .27,17,880/- AND ADDED AS TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 3 3. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 274 R.W. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 18.12.2009 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. AGAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED LETTER DATED 08.06.2011 AN D FIXED THE HEARING ON 20.06.2011. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE S REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE INCOME OR TO FILE INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. I T WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO OFFER THE PEAK PURCHASE AND TAX DUE THEREON, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT AND INSPITE OF THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. KALEESWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD. TO THE TUNE OF .6,53,79,882/- AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING SALE THROUGH WHICH SUBSTANTIAL REVENU E RECEIPTS ARE GENERATED HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SAID ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS WERE CONSCIOUSLY AND DELIBERATELY NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME AND HAD DELIBERATELY I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 4 FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED ON SUCH UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AS UNDER: FINANCIAL YEAR UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS 2001-02 . 6,53,79,882/- 2002-03 . 7,06,41,087/- 2003-04 . 10,97,57,668/- 2004 - 05 . 31,00,299/ - 4. FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS CARRYING ON A MAJOR PORTION OF ITS TRANSACTIONS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH THE ONLY INTENTION OF SUPPRESSING ITS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE H AS THUS, CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING O FFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF .15,85,452/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, .25,41,278/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND .19,66,809/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05 BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME CONTINUOUSLY FOR FOUR YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEV IED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER. IN BETWEEN, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDI TION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF. ON FURT HER APPEAL BEFORE THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 5 TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL ALSO GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF. AC CORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DETERMINED THE DETAILS OF INCOME FINALLY AND PREPAR ED A CHART, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: S. NO. ASST. YEAR ADDITION CONTESTED ( .) DECISION OF THE CIT(A) TOTAL INCOME AFTER ITAT DECISION ( .) 1. 2002-03 PEAK PURCHASE .27,17,880 GP ADDITION - . 8,17,208 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT .3,85,248 ALLOWED .9,59,791 30,48,450 2. 2003-04 PEAK PURCHASE .60,80,829 GP ADDITION - .21,26,297 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . 22,056 ALLOWED .21,26,297 ALLOWED .22,056 46,67,428 3. 2004-05 PEAK PURCHASE .38,10,357 GP ADDITION - . 36,54,930 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . 7,74,104 ALLOWED .36,54,930 ALLOWED .7,74,104 37,12,620 6. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DET AILS OF INCOME, DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY FOLLOWING S OME DECISIONS DELETED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT LEVI ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004- 05 BY PASSING CONSOLIDATED ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CIT(A)'S ORDER, ITAT ORDER, PENALTY ORDER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBM ISSION, ETC. ARE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE PENALTIE S LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR THE AYS 2002-03 TO 2004-05. AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY IS THE RESULT OF QUASI-CR IMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT AND VARIOU S HIGH COURTS IN UMPTEEN NUMBER OF CASES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY ENTITLE REVENUE TO IMPOSE PENALTY VIDE MADHUSUDHANAN K.P. VS CIT(2001) 251 ITR 99 (SC). IT IS ESTABLISHED LAW, THAT NOT ALL ADDITIONS WOULD JUSTIFY PENALTY AS A M ATTER OF COURSE. BUT ADDITION IS THE BASIS FOR PENALTY. MERE ADMISSION D OES NOT JUSTIFY PENALTY EVEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXPLANATION TO SEC.271(1)( C) OF THE ACT VIDE CIT VS. SARAN KHANDSARI SUGAR WORKS (2000) 246 ITR 216 (ALL .). THE LAW THAT ASSESSMENTS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT A ND THAT PENALTY DOES NOT BECOME EXIGIBLE, MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION HA D BECOME FINAL IS WELL SETTLED VIDE CIT VS. MATA PRASAD (2005) 278 ITR 354 (ALL.). I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 6 IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE INCOME RETURNED AND THE INCOME ASSESSED WAS NOT DUE TO ANY FRAUD OR WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART, THEN PENALTY IS NOT EXIGIBLE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE FAC T OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE AND SALE, IT IMMEDIATELY AGREED FOR THE PE AK PURCHASE ADDITION BUT REQUESTED FOR TELESCOPING IN THE SECOND YEAR OF ADDITION ONWARDS WHICH WAS DECLINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE HO N'BLE ITAT, 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI IN ITS ORDER DATED 07.10.2011 ALLOWE D TELESCOPING AS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION IN ALL THE YE ARS IS AN ESTIMATED ONE AND DOES NOT CALL FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT BY PAYING TAXES ON T HE ADMITTED PEAK PURCHASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT PENALTIES U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT LEVIABLE FOR ALL T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION. THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) FOR THE AYS 2002 -03 TO 2004-05 ARE HEREBY CANCELLED. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE APPELLANT ARE FULLY A LLOWED. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 8. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT AND INSPITE O F THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PURCHASE AS WELL AS SALE. THEREFO RE, IT IS A CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY NOT FILING FULL PARTICULAR S OF INCOME, 271(1)(C) CLEARLY APPLIES TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 9. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE NOT BASED ON ESTIMATE BASIS, BUT IT IS BASED ON CONCEALED INCOME . THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE BASED ON ESTIMATE BASIS I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 7 AND THE PENALTY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TO BE REVERSED AND THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE RES TORED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND SU BMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND PAI D THE TAXES, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. T HE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESA LE AND RETAIL TRADE IN EDIBLE OILS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE MADE CERTAIN PURCHASES FROM M/S. KALEESWARI REFINERY PVT. LTD. A ND ITS GROUP COMPANIES BY PAYMENT CASH AND THE PURCHASES ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASS ESSEE MADE SALES AND THE SAME ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THES E ABOVE FACTS ARE UNDISPUTEDLY ADMITTED BY SHRI K. ARUMUGAM, MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PURC HASED GOODS IN CASH WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ALONE, BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINUOUSLY DO ING FOR FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, OUT OF WHICH THREE ASSESSMENT YEA RS ARE UNDER APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTINUOUSLY DOING THE SAME ACTIVITY WITHOUT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 8 RECORDING PURCHASE AS WELL AS SALES. AS PER THE OBS ERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER AT PAGE 7, I T HAS BEEN RECORDED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2002-03 IS AT .6,53,79,882/-, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IS AT .7,06,41,087/- AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS AT .10,97,57,668/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY AND DELI BERATELY AND CONTINUOUSLY DOING THESE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THERE FORE, IT IS A FIT CASE TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 12. IN SO FAR AS THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CONCERNED, IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE IN COME RETURNED AND THE INCOME ASSESSED WAS NOT DUE TO ANY FRAUD OR WILFUL NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART, THEN PENALTY IS NOT EXIGIBLE. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDE RSTAND AS TO HOW THE LD. CIT(A) CAME TO SUCH A CONCLUSION IN THIS CASE FOR A REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUOUSLY PURCHASING AND SELLING ED IBLE OILS WITHOUT RECORDING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE ALSO AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. INSPITE OF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SHOWING ITS ACCOUNTS CORRECTLY. THE SAME MODUS OPERANDI WAS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 TO 2 004-05 AND GENERATED HUGE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER WITHOUT OFFERING FOR TAXA TION. THEREFORE, IT IS WILFUL AND DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE NOT RECORDING THE FULL TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO EVADE TAXAT ION. THE ASSESSEE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 9 CONTENDED THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN A CASE WHE RE THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERS INCOME AS THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE, BECAUSE, THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE ON THE FIRST DAY IN ALL THE YEARS AND THE MANAGING PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ADMITTED IN HIS STATEM ENT THAT THE SAID PURCHASES AND SALES WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE REGULA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOT FOR ONE YEAR BUT FOR FOUR YEARS FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02. THE CLEAR ADMISSION OF OMISSION OF RECORDING ALL PURCHASES AN D SALES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ONLY TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE NOT RECORDING ALL PURCHASES AND SALES, CONCEALED THE INCOME BY FILING INACCURATE PARTICULA RS. THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CI T(A) FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND CONFIRM THE PENALTY ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, THE INCOME FINALLY ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ITATS ORDER WAS .46,67,428/- AS PER THE ORDER DATED 19.12.2011, WHICH INCLUDE THE I NCOME ORIGINALLY ASSESSED OF .15,47,286/-. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION ACTUALLY MADE I N THE ASSESSMENT WAS ONLY .31,20,142/-. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .438 438438 438- -- -440 440440 440/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 10 ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE PENALTY DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO BE MODIFIED AND REDUCED. WE DIRECT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME AND IF IT IS FOUND CORRECT, THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 SHALL BE MODIFIED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2004-05 ARE ALLOWED AND FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003-04, ALLOWED AS STATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 12 TH OF DECEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12.12.2014 VM/- - ( &'*./ 0/,* /COPY TO: 1. $% / APPELLANT, 2. &'$% / RESPONDENT, 3. 1 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 1 /CIT, 5. /2 &'*' /DR & 6. 3! 4 /GF.