SUDHIR AVASTHI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 464/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5332 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 464/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SUDHIR AWASTHI, 34, GANGWAL PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 5(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABNPA 8731 G VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/02/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/03/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09/03/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LE VIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, FOR CONCEALMENT O F INCOME IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MA DE TO RETURNED INCOME, TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITED INTO THE ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 2 BANK HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69A OF T HE IT ACT, 1961. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT RESULTED IN ADDITION OF RS. 11,47,605/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT AND ESTIMATION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE AD DITIONS IN APPEAL, THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 22/6/2012 DELETED THE ESTI MATION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME, HOWEVER, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS IN RESPECT OF SECTION 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED, WHICH NOW REMA IN CONFINED TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 69A. THE AO IMPOS ED THE PENALTY IN THIS RESPECT OF THIS ADDITION BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ONS: IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS T O THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE SOURCES OF WHICH REMAINS UNPROVED AND THE RESPECTIVE INCOME NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ALSO, THE ASSESSE E HAS NET MAINTAINED ANY ACCOUNTS OF THE RECEIPTS FROM BUSINE SS EARNED BY IT AND AN ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS. 1,47, 605/- HAS BEEN MADE WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN APPROVED BY THE ID. C IT(A). SUFFICIENT POSITIVE MATERIAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN BR OUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO JUSTIFY THIS ALLEGATION. H ENCE, HAVING DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY DISCLOSING LESS ER BUSINESS PROFIT LEADS TO ATTRACT PENAL PROVISIONS B Y VIRTUE OF ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 3 SECTION 271(1)(C). FURTHER, THE EXPLANATION PUT FOR TH BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS DEFENSE DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND SATISFACTORY AND IN THIS WAY ALSO THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 2 71(1)(C). 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL A GAINST PENALTY. THE LD CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING IT RELIED ONLY ON THE OBS ERVATIONS OF THE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN THIS BEHALF BY FOLLOWING O BSERVATIONS: 3.4.1. IN THIS CASE, ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- H AS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS IS A GIFT RE CEIVED FROM HIS LATE FATHER, AGED OVER 90 YEARS AND SUFFER ING FROM CANCER. THE ITAT, JAIPUR, IN ITA NO.889/JP/2009 VIDE DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHO LDING THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, H AS HELD, ON PAGE-7 OF THE APPEAL ORDER THAT- THE CAPACITY OF THE OSTENSIBLE DONOR THUS REMAINS TOTALLY UNPROVED. AS AFORE- STATED, AND AS WOULD AL SO BE APPARENT FROM THE FOREGOING, THE ASSESSEES EXPLANA TION IS ALSO INFLICTED BY INFERENCE OF LACK OF GENUINENE SS, WHICH STEMS FROM THE FACTUAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL GAP S IN HIS EXPLANATION, WHICH IS UNSUBSTANTIATED , AND WHICH WE SHALL EXAMINE NEXT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 4 EXPLANATION AND HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THIS EXPLA NATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMP UTATION OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. THEREFORE, LE VY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY MERELY BECAUSE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE QUAN TUM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN SUMMARILY R ELYING QUANTUM FINDING IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE SETTLED LEGAL PRO POSITIONS IN RESPECT OF LEVYING PENALTY. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATI ON OFFERED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DISCARDED AND PENALTY WAS LEVIED AND UPHELD MEREL Y BECAUSE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN QUANTUM APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING DISTINCT AND SEPARATE THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED THUS. THERE IS NO INDEPENDENT APPLICATIO N OF MIND ON THE FACTS AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF LEVY ING PENALTY. WHILE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT APAR T FROM OTHER FACTS, TWO FACTORS MUST CO-EXIST - (I) THERE MUST BE SOME MATE RIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUN T DOES REPRESENT THE ASSESSEES INCOME. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY THAT THE ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 5 AMOUNT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME AND (II) THE CIR CUMSTANCES MUST SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANIMUS, I.E. CONSCIOUS CONCEALME NT OR ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. EXPLANATION - 1 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) HAS NO BEARIN G ON FACTOR NO. 1 BUT HAS A BEARING ONLY ON FACTOR NO. 2. THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUN T ASSESSED WAS IN FACT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE GI VES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS REASONABLE DEPARTMENT CANNOT IGNORE IT AND IMPOSE PENALTY MERELY RELYING AN OBSERVATION IN QUANTUM. THERE IS N O MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE GIFTED AMOUNT BY FATHER WAS IN ANY WAY THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER ARE CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (1) (C) ARE ATTRACTED AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF GOSWAMI SMT. CHANDRALATA 125 ITR 700 (RAJ.). IN THAT CASE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ' IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEP ARATE AND DISTINCT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FINDINGS IN Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS THOUGH RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE , THEY CANNOT OPERATE AS RES-JUDICATA. PENALTY IS NOT A MATTER OF COURSE AND IT IS NOT ATTRACTED AUTOMATICALLY SIMPLY BECAUSE TH E ADDITION HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 6 ON MERITS OF THE PENALTY, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH OF RS. 10 LACS WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE GIFT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER. THE FACT OF RECEIPT OF GIFT IS DULY EVIDENT FROM THE LETTER DATED 10.01.2004 WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAS CONVE YED THE AFOREMENTIONED GIFT TO ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID LETTER HAVE NEITHER BEEN DOUBTED NOR BEEN REBUTTED BY THE LD. A O OR CIT(A). THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS AILING FATHER IS GENUINE ON FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAS HIMSELF STATED THAT THE GIFT WAS GIVEN BY HIM OUT OF SAVINGS FROM SALE OF HIS AGRICU LTURAL LAND IN HIS HOMETOWN GOPALPUR IN U.P. WHILE RECEIVING THE GIFT F ROM HIS AILING FATHER, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ASK AS TO HOW HE COULD SAVING T HE MONEY WHERE HE WAS KEPT AND HE SHOULD GIVE THE EVIDENCE REGARDING S OURCE. THE LD COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT FOR ASKING SUCH QUEST IONS FROM AILING FATHER IN HINDU SOCIETY IS SACRILEGIOUS. RELIANCE IS PLACE D ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V S. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF HUMAN CONDUCT, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND S URROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS CASE, ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN IGNORING THE NEAR DEATH CONDITION OF AILING FATHER FROM THE DEADLY DI SEASE CANCER, HAS BEEN ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 7 TOTALLY IGNORED WHICH VIOLATES THE BASIC TENETS OF L AW FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEES PRIMAR Y ONUS IN CASE OF A GIFT FROM AILING FATHER STANDS DISCHARGED BY ESTABLISHIN G ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68. RELIANCE IN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S DAULAT RAM RAWAT MUL L 87 ITR 349. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) 57 ITR 532 (SC) P. SEETHARAMAMMA (II) 87 ITR 349 (SC) DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL (III) 103 ITR 344 (PATNA) SAROGI CREDIT CORPN. (IV) 59 ITR 632 (ASM) TOLARAM DAGA (V) 32 TTJ 300 (PUNE) (AT) SURESH KALMADI. (VI) 113 TAXATION 11 (JP) (AT) 1993 SURINDRA SINGH IN REPLY TO OTHER ALLEGATIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SUB MITTED THAT THE OCCURRENCE OF TIME GAP BETWEEN RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT AND DEPOSITION OF THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY LEA D TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH COULD NOT DEPOSITED IMMEDIATELY AFTER RECEIPT THEREOF FOR THE REASON THAT THE CASH COULD HAVE BEEN NEEDED AT ANY TIME OWI NG TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS IN CRITICAL MEDICAL CONDIT ION AND WAS SUFFERING ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 8 FROM CANCER AND HAD BEEN UNDERGOING TREATMENT. THERE FORE, THE CASH WAS KEPT AS A RESERVE AMOUNT TO MEET OUT THE CONTING ENCY OF REQUIREMENT OF HUGE CASH FOR TREATMENT OF ASSESSEE S FATHER. AFTER THE DEATH OF FATHER ASSESSEE COULD NOT REALIZE THAT LAS T DEPOSIT OF CASH COULD BE DOUBTED WHEN HE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES IN THE SH APE OF GIFT FOR SUCH AMOUNT. THOUGH, THE EXPENSES FOR TREATMENT WERE MET O UT BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY, BUT THE CASH WAS KEPT IN RESERVE TO M EET OUT ANY HUGE REQUIREMENT OF MONEY IF NEED SO ARISES. THUS, MERELY BECAUSE THE CASH WAS NOT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IMMEDIATELY AF TER RECEIPT THEREOF DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER SUGGEST CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SEEN FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, HAD THE INTENTION OF ASSESSEE BEEN TO CONCEAL THIS AMOUNT, THEN HE WOULD NOT AT ALL HAVE DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THAT TOO IN THAT PARTICULAR ACCOUNT WHEREIN, HE RECEIVES HIS PROFESSI ONAL RECEIPT AND WHICH ACCOUNT STANDS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT ALREADY. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO CONCEAL THE A MOUNT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT, APART FROM THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAC S, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13.75 LACS FROM HIS FATH ER WHICH FACT WAS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD. AO IN AS MUCH AS THE SAME WAS MENTIONED ON THE GIFT LETTER ITSELF, BUT THE SAME WA S NOT AT ALL DOUBTED BY ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 9 THE LD. AO. THUS, THE LD. AO HAS ACCEPTED THE SOURC E OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13.75 LACS AND HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE CAPACITY OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER TO GIFT SO MUCH A MOUNT TO HIS SON (THE ASSESSEE), BUT HAS DOUBTED ONLY THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 0 LACS WHICH SHOWS A CLEAR CONTRADICTORY STAND ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE A BOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVIN G THE SOURCE OF AMOUNTS DEPOSITED BY HIM IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND SO URCE OF PART AMOUNT AND CAPACITY OF DONOR HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY LD. AO. THUS, THE ONUS SHIFTED ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AS WRONG BY LEADING MATERIAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE REVE NUE HAS MISERABLE FAILED TO DO. FURTHER, THE LD. AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT( A) HAVE PLACED COMPLETE RELIANCE ON THE OUTCOME OF QUANTUM PROCEED INGS AND HAVE SIMPLY BORROWED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREON, WITHOU T INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH AC CORDING TO THE EMBELLISHED LAW ARE COMPLETELY DISTINCT FROM THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLL OWING DECISIONS: (I) EILLY LILLY & COMPANY REPORTED IN 312 ITR 225 (II) NARANGS INTERNATIONAL HOTELS (P) LTD. V/S. DC IT, CIRCLE 1 (2), MUMBAI REPORTED IN 137 ITD 53 (III) NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT 249 ITR 125 ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 10 6. THE LD DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS 90 YEARS OLD SUFFERING FROM CA NCER, HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED. THE FACT THAT THE EARLIER GIFT OF RS. 13.75 LACS FROM THE FATHER HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE LD CIT(A) WHI LE CONFIRMING THE PENALTY HAS RELIED ONLY ON THE OBSERVATION OF THE I TAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS ARE NEITHER MECHANICAL NOR AUTOMATIC AND MERELY BECAUSE THERE I S A FINDING IN THE QUANTUM ORDER MAKING THE ADDITION BY ITSELF CANNOT JUSTIFY FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY MORE SO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPUTED TH E ADDITION. THE ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF EILLY LITTY & COMPNAY AND NATIONAL TEXTILES (SUPRA) IS WELL FOUNDED. THUS TH E LD CIT(A) EXCEPT RELYING ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT HAS DONE NO THING TO HOLD THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS FALSE AND ANY OTHER MATER IAL TO DRAW AN INFERENCE QUA THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSE E HAS GIVEN A REASONABLE EXPLANATION ON MERITS ABOUT THE GIFT AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE PENALTY ISSUE, NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN COMMENTED T HEREON EXCEPT THE FINDING OF THE ITAT. ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 11 7.1 IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AR E DISTINGUISHED AND SEPARATE AND ASSESSEE CAN RAISE FRESH PLEA IN THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. HAVING RAISED PROP ER EXPLANATION AND PLEASE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE CIT(A) TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY AS AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND GIVEN PROPER FINDINGS. THE MERE REFERENCE TO ITAT IN QUANTUM PROC EEDINGS, WHICH ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINGUISH, CANNOT PARTAKE A CHARACTE R OF EXERCISE OF APPEAL DISCRETION BY THE LD CIT(A). IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CASE BEFORE US IS NOT FIT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE SAME IS DELE TED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/03/2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO V KJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 30 TH MARCH, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SUDHIR AWASTHI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 5(2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) ITA 464/JP/2015_ SUDHIR AWASTHI VS. ITO 12 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 464/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR