The Income-tax Officer, BATALA V. Sh. Sukhamrit Singh Prop., BATALA

ITA 451/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 45120914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIK CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: SATISH KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Gift; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.451(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 PAN :AKLPS5855J THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. SH. SUKHAMRIT SINGH, WARD 2(4), BATALA. PROP. M/S. UNIQUE MOTORS, BATALA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. AMRIK CHAND, DR RESPONDENT BY:SH. SATISH KUMAR GUPTA DATE OF HEARING:29/08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:05/09/2012 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 31.05.2011 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10 .2005 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,57,120/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.80,000/ -. THE AO PROCESSED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT), VIDE INTIMATION DATED 07.02.2006 AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 2 WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 27.10.2006, WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE AS SESSEE ON THE SAME DATE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS AD JOURNED FOR 24.11.2006. NONE APPEARED ON 24.11.2006 AND THE AO ISSUED FRESH STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142 & 143(2) DATED 19.12.2006. AGAIN NOB ODY ATTENDED ON THE APPOINTED DATE I.E. 29.12.2006. SIMILARLY, SO MANY TIMES, THE AO ADJOURNED THE MATTER. BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE AND LASTLY THE AO VIDE NOTICE DATED 08.06.2007 INFORMED THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE OF NON- COMPLIANCE, THE CASE WOULD BE DECIDED EX-PARTE. NOT ICE WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 12.06.2007 ALONGWITH STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 142 AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 28.06.2007 AND THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT, TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT VIDE ASSESSMEN T ORDER DATED 02.07.2007 BY MAKING NET ESTIMATED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.25,5 7,195/- MENTIONED AT PAGES 5 & 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 02.07.2007, MADE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 19.03.2008 HAS WRITTEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ON 17.03.2008, THE APPELLANT FILED A LETTER DATED 17.03.2008 REQUESTING FOR WITH DRAWAL OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THESE FACTS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 3 WITHDRAWN . AS PER RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FI LED A PETITION U/S 264 OF THE ACT DATED 14.05.2008 BEFORE THE LD. CIT-1, AMRI TSAR, REQUESTING FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02.07.2007 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE AO TO GIVE REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALTERNATIVELY VARIOUS ADDITIONS AN D DISALLOWANCES SO MADE UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS BY THE AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ANY OTHER LEGITIMATE RELIEF FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED. THE LD. CIT-1, AMRITSAR, VIDE HIS ORDER D ATED 21.10.2008 DIRECTED THE AO TO MODIFY ASSESSMENT ORDER TO GIVE RELIEF OF RS.10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES OUT OF RS.40,420/- AND FINALL Y DISPOSED OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 264 OF THE ACT. 3. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPL AINED ABOVE, THE ITO WARD 2(4), BATALA INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DIS PUTE. HE ELABORATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/ S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, DATED 21.01.2009 TO THE ASSESSEE FIXING THE CASE FO R HEARING ON 28.1.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A REPL Y DATED 27.02.2009 AND STATED THAT NO PROPER NOTICE OF AUDIT REPORT, TRADI NG ACCOUNT, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET HAS BEEN TAKEN THEREOF WH ILE FRAMING EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE WERE GENUINE DEPOSITORS ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 4 AND CREDITORS AS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET WHI CH WAS RETURNED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER STATED IN RE PLY DATED 27.02.2009 THAT THE INCOME WAS ENHANCED BY MAKING DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD SALARY, PETROL, TELEPHONE AND TRAVELING ALLOWA NCES WITHOUT MAKING PROPER INQUIRY AND COLLECTING EVIDENCE WHICH IS ME RELY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION WHICH DOES NOT WARRANT THE INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ITO WARD-2(4), BATALA STATED THAT THE ONUS IS ON TH E ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CREDITS AND JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES CLA IMED IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BY SUPPLYING VOUCHERS. BUT HE FAILED TO DIS CHARGE HIS ONUS INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED TO HIM AND THE AO HA S PROPOSED TO PASS EX- PARTE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE ITO WARD 2 (4), BATALA, REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AND F INALLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE CREDIT-WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND HE IS FULLY SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURAT E PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT @ 1 00% OF THE CONCEALED INCOME I.E. AMOUNTING TO RS.7,55,308/- VIDE HIS ORD ER DATED 13.03.2009 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 5 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.05 .2011 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANCELLED THE PENALTY I N DISPUTE. 5. NOW, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED OR DER DATED 31.05.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A O WARD 2(4) U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE MERELY ON TH E GROUND THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN HIS APPEAL WHICH HE HAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESORTED TO SECTION 264 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY T HE LD. CIT-I AND THE ITO HAD LEVIED PENALTY IN DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SH. SATISH GUPTA, ADVOCATE, RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO WHICH INCLUDES STATEMENT OF TRA DING ACCOUNT, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CD DULY SIGNED BY SH. ANIL KUMAR, CA. THIS WAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE AO AND HE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION IN DI SPUTE ON ESTIMATION BASIS. ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 6 NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FIELD APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT DATED 02.07.2007 BUT LATER ON ASSESSEE H AS WITHDRAWN THE SAME BY FILING PETITION U/S 264 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD . CIT-1, AMRITSAR, WHICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED BY HIM VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.20 08. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ITO WARD-2(4), BATALA, HAS LEVIED THE PENA LTY IN DISPUTE VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 13.03.2009, ON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMATION BASIS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PREVENTED WITH SUFFIC IENT CAUSES TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO WHICH THE LD. CIT(A), HAS MENTIONED IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) AMOUNTING TO RS.10,000/-, WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED ON THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON VARIOUS DECIS IONS OF THE COURTS, MENTIONED AS UNDER: 1. SH. BODH RAJ CHOPRA (HUF) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), AMRITSAR, (2008) 36 IT REP 595 (ITAT, ASR) 2. DILIP N.SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT (2007) 33 I.T.REP 3 87 (SC) 291 ITR 519. 3. METAL PRODUCTS OF INDIA 150 ITR 714 (P&H) 4. HARI GOPAL SINGH VS. CIT (2003) 257 ITR 85 (P&H) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, SH. SATISH GUPTA, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E MAY BE DISMISSED. HE HAS ALSO FILED PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 145 . ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 7 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PAS SED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ALONGWITH THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S 264 OF THE ACT, AS WELL AS ORDERS OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY DELETING PENALTY LEVIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT A LONGWITH VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER. AS PER RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FIELD HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.10.2005 DECLARING INCOME AT 1,57,120/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 80,000/-. HE HAS ALSO ATTACHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ALONGWITH R ETURN VIZ STATEMENT OF TRADING ACCOUNT, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHE ET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM NO.3CD DULY SIGNED BY THE COMPETENT PERSON. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS DUE TO THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN PARA 6.1 AT PAGE 30, THE REASONS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-APPEARING BEFORE THE AO ARE THAT HE REMAINED PRE-OCCUPIED IN SEEKING ALLOTMENT OF DE ALERSHIP OF HERO HONDA AND DEALT WITH VARIOUS DEPARTMENT TO WHOM A COMPLAI NT WAS BEING PURSUED BY UNKNOWN PERSONS OUT OF JEALOUSY AND ILL-WILL WHI CH LED HIM TO REMAIN ABSCONDED AND UNDERGROUND FOR QUITE GOOD TIME TO AV OID HARASSMENT. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENGAGED SH. ANIL GUPTA, CA, WHO FAILED TO APPRISE THE APPELLANT ABOUT THE DAY TO DAY DEVELOP MENTS OF THE SCRUTINY CASE ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 8 AND ULTIMATELY, THE AO HAS COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON 02.07.2007. THIRDLY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF RE MAINED CONFINED TO BED BEING A HEART PATIENT DURING THE PERIOD FROM 8.5.20 07 ONWARDS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED PRESCRIPTION SLIPS AND COPIES OF VARIOUS CLINICAL TESTS ADDUCED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. F OURTHLY, HE TOOK CARE OF HIS TWO MENTALLY RETARDED CHILDREN WHO WERE INSANE BY B IRTH AND ALSO TO PAY MEDICAL ATTENDANCE TO HIS AILING MOTHER SUFFERING F ROM VARIOUS AILMENTS AND IN PARTICULAR FROM CANCER WHICH ULTIMATELY LED TO H ER SAD AND SUDDEN DEMISE ON 7.10.2006 I.E. DURING COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO DISCLOSED VARIOUS OTH ER REASONS FOR REMAINING THE ASSESSEE ABSENT FROM ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS AND COULD NOT PURSUE HIS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES PROPERLY. 9. AFTER PERUSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH THE AO HAS MADE ALL ADDITIONS, DISALLOWANCES, TREATING THE CASH CREDITS /FOREIGN RECEIPTS AS WELL AS ASSESSEES DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME MERELY ON E STIMATE AND GUESS WORK BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY POSITIVE AND C ONCRETE EVIDENCE TO BE APPLIED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT T HE AO HAS NOT QUOTED ANY COMPARABLE CASE IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, WHICH HAS SHOWN BETTER GROSS PROFIT THAN THAT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED STATEMENT OF TRADING ACCOUNT, PROFIT & LOSS ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 9 ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD DULY SIGNED BY THE AUTHORIZED PERSON. AS REGARDS TO THE CASH CREDITS W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN HIS RETURN, CAN ESTABLISH ITS GENUINENESS BY FURNISHING NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BUT DUE TO LACK OF COMMUNICATI ON BY HIS C.A. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SAME. AS REGARDS TH E FOREIGN GIFT IN DISPUTE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED FROM HIS REAL BROTH ER WHO IS RESIDING IN USA AND MADE THE GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF LOVE AND A FFECTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL NEC ESSARY EVIDENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS REGARDS TO THE AGRICULTU RAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION BASIS, WHICH HAS BEEN CO NVERTED INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE REVENUES RECORD FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO BEING ANCESTRAL LAN D AS PER JAMABANDI AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSMENT RECORD. NO DOUBT, TH E AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON ESTIMATION BASIS WITHOUT BRINGING ANY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME IN HIS RETURN INTENTIONALLY OR MALAFIDELY. IN OUR CONSIDE RED VIEW, THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE ON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS WHICH IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON FILE AND CO NTRARY TO THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE COURTS. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ORDER ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 10 TO ATTRACT CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1), IT IS VERY MUCH NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO THE CASES WHERE THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALS O, THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION ON THE PART OF T HE ASSESSEE IN FILING THE RETURN. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT IPSO FACTOR LIAB LE FOR PENALTY UNTIL IT IS DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE WAS A MALAFIDE INTENT ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR THIS WAS HIS DELIBERATE ACT. THE AO HAS TO ESTABLIS H THE ASSESSEES MALAFIDE INTENTION TO EVADE TAX WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO , IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THIS VIE W IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHROFF VS. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519, WHERE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HAS HELD THAT IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THERE WAS ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION ON HIS PART SO AS TO MAKE HIM LIABLE FOR PENALTY. A MERE O MISSION OR NEGLIGENCE WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE DELIBERATE ACT OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR SUPPRESSED OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY BASIS FOR LEVY ING PENALTY IN DISPUTE ON ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 11 THE ADDITIONS MADE WHICH IS PURELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HIGH COURT HAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY HELD IN T HE CASE OF METAL PRODUCTS OF INDIA REPORTED IN 150 ITR 704 THAT MERELY BECAU SE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATION BASIS DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS FAILURE TO RETURN THE CORRECT INCOME. WHERE THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED BY ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT AND THERE W AS DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS REGARDS TO THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE, CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THEIR VIEW IS ALSO S UPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF HARI GOPAL SINGH VS. CIT (2003) 257 ITR 85. 9.1. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AD DITIONS ON WHICH PENALTY IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN IMPOSED IS PURELY ON ESTIMATIO N BASIS AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO EVADE TAX IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. ACCORD INGLY, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE BY UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BECAUSE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT AND ITA NO.451(ASR)/2011 12 HIGH COURTS. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE WELL REASONED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY DISMIS SING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5TH SEPT., 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SH. SUKHAMRIT SINGH PROP. M/S. UNIQUE MOTORS, BATALA. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), BATALA. 3. THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR. 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.