KANAIYALAL B SHAH, MUMBAI V. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE 19(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4667/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1392 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DIVYA JESWANT
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 273B; 133A; 133(6); 250; 147; 131; 27; 148; 12; 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH MUMB AI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4667/MUM/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ) KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 31, JAI BHAVANI SOCIETY, 3 RR THAKKER MARG, MUMBAI-400006. PAN: AAHPK4505D VS. JCIT RANGE-19(2), MUMBAI. APPELLANT RESPONDE NT APPELLANT BY : MS. DIVYA JESWANT (AR) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGH (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06.08.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 30.08.2019 ORDERUNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-7. HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), MUMBAI DATED 11 TH APRIL 2018, WHICH IN TURN ARISE IN THE MATTER OF PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) O F THE ACT BY ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER 2014. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MR. KANAIYALAL B. SHAH (THE APPELLANT') RESPECTFULLY CRAVES LEAVE TO PREFER AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 7, MUMBAI ('CIT(A)') DATED 11 APRIL 2018 (RECEIVED ON 18.05.2018) UNDER SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT') (THE ORDER'), ON THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 27 2A(2)(C) OF THE ACT OF ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 2 RS. 36,400 LEVIED BY THE JCIT ('AO') FOR NON-COMPLI ANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED AT RS. 36,400 MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) AO HAS ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DOCU MENT (REFERRED TO AS THE BASE NOTE) WHICH IS NOT AUTHENTICATED OR CERTIFIED BY ANY CREDIBLE STATUTORY AUTHORITY OR THE BANK IN QUESTION. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SEEKING TO ESTAB LISH THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE INFORMATION ON THE BASIS THAT TH E PERSONAL DETAILS OF THE APPELLANT MATCHES WITH THE DETAILS AS MENTIONED IN THE BASE NOTE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WH ICH SUBSTANTIATES THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT OWN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC BANK, GENEVA. 5. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE 'CONSENT WAIVER FORM' AS IT WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO APPELLANT MAKING A FALSE STATEMENT/DECLARATION ABOU T A BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC BANK, GENEVA OF WHICH HE IS NOT THE OWNER. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT NO C ASE FOR A REASONABLE CAUSE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECT ION 273B OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC BANK, GENEVA. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 INITIATED ON THE BASIS THE ALLEGE D BANK ACCOUNT OF HSBC BANK, GENEVA WERE DROPPED IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY THE AO. 8. IN THE PREMISES OF THE AFORESAID, THE IMPUGNED O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND, WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, BY PURPORTING TO RELY ON EVIDENCE WHICH IS CLEARLY INADMISSIBLE AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND THEREFORE THE SAID ORDER IS UNS USTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT EACH OF THE ABOVE GROUND S IS INDEPENDENT AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER. 2. PERUSAL OF RECORD REVEALS THAT THE ORDER IMPUGNED I N THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON 11 TH APRIL 2018, ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 3 HOWEVER THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS FILED ON 1 ST AUGUST 2018, THUS THERE IS APPARENT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. IN T HE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ONLY ON 18 TH MAY 2018, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 1 ST AUGUST 2018, THUS, THERE IS DELAY OF 15 DAYS AND FI LING THE PRESENT APPEAL. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE MATTER/APPEAL WAS DIS MISSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS AND WAS NOT HEARD ON MERIT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS STRONG AND GOOD CASE ON MERIT. THE REVENUE WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICE, IF THE MATTER IS HE ARD ON MERIT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED HIS AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR CONDONING THE DELAY APPLICATION. IN THE AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE DEPOSED THAT HE IS 82 YEARS OLD AND WAS NOT BEEN WELL DUE T O OLD AGE AND WAS UNABLE TO COORDINATE WITH HIS TAX CONSULTANT, DUE T O WHICH A DELAY OF 15 DAYS OCCURRED. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE MADE HIS SUBMISSION AS PER THE CONTENTION PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY AND IN AFFIDAVIT. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHE R SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G DUE TO TECHNICAL REASONS. AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD SUFFER, IF THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE S UBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONI NG THE DELAY. ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 4 HOWEVER, THE LD. DR LEFT THE DECISION ON APPLICATIO N FOR CONDONING THE DELAY ON THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND THE AFFIDA VIT FILED IN SUPPORT THEREOF. CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF APPLICATION, A FFIDAVIT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE AND KEEP ING IN VIEW THERE IS A DELAY OF 15 DAYS ONLY AND THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO BE HEARD ON THE MERIT. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE/APPL ICANT IS A SENIOR CITIZEN AND HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DE LAY AS IT MAINLY OCCURRED DUE TO HIS ILL-HEALTH. THEREFORE, TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL IS CONDONED. NOW, WE SHALL PROCEED TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EXTRACTED FROM THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, LEADING TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C) ARE THAT ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION R ECEIVED BY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA FROM FRENCH GOVERNMENT UNDER DO UBLE TAXATION AVOIDANCE AGREEMENT IN EXERCISE OF ITS SOVEREIGN PO WER THAT SOME INDIAN NATIONALS AND RESIDENTS INCLUDING ASSESSEE HAD FORE IGN BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC BANK, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, WHICH WERE UNDISCLO SED TO THE INDIAN TAX DEPARTMENT. THIS INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN TH E FORM OF A DOCUMENT CALLED BASE NOTE. IN THE SAID BASE NOTE VA RIOUS DETAILS OF ACCOUNT HOLDER SUCH AS NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, PLACE O F BIRTH, SEX, RESIDENTIAL ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 5 ADDRESS, PROFESSION, NATIONALITY ALONG WITH DATE OF OPENING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC, GENEVA AND BALANCE IN CERTAIN YE ARS WERE INFORMED. IN CASE OF ASSESSEE, A BASE NOTE WAS ALSO ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED. BASE NOTE ALLEGEDLY CONTAINED ALL PERSONAL DETAILS OF THE ASS ESSEE INCLUDING HIS NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, PLACE OF BIRTH, SEX RESIDENTIA L ADDRESS, PROFESSION, NATIONALITY WITH DATE OF OPENING OF THE BANK ACCOUN T WITH HSBC BANK, GENEVA AND THE AMOUNT OF BALANCE IN THAT PARTICULAR YEARS IN THE SAID DOCUMENT. ON THE BASIS OF AFORESAID INFORMATION, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE DETAILS CLEARLY SHOW T HE ACCOUNT BELONGS TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE CASE O F ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 147, BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 12 TH MARCH 2014. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS ALSO CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES GROUP ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 BY INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDING AND SUBSEQUENTLY STATEMENT OF SON OF ASS ESSEE WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 ON 23 RD DECEMBER 2011. HOWEVER, SHRI SANJAY K SHAH, SON OF ASSESSEE DENIED OF HAVING ANY BANK ACC OUNT WITH HSBC, GENEVA IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE OR HIS FAMILY MEMBER S. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE ON 2 ND JULY 2014 FOR FURNISHING COMPLETE DETAILS OF STATE MENT OF BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC, GENEVA, SINCE INCEPTION TILL DATE AND IF HE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF THE STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT THEN HE WAS REQUIRED TO ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 6 FILL UP A CONSENT WAIVER FORM (FOR FACILITATING THE COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM HSBC BANK GENEVA TO ASSESSEE). IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICE ISSUED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 131 THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING ON 7 TH JULY 2014, WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE ON OA TH WAS RECORDED. DURING THE STATEMENT ON OATH THE ASSE SSEE DENIED OWNERSHIP OF ANY BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC GENEVA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT DATED 19 TH DECEMBER 2013 FOR OBTAINING THE ASSESSEES CONSENT WAIVER FO RM. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ALLEGED BANK ACCOUNT. ON FAILURE TO SIGN CONSENT WAIVER FORM BY THE ASSESSEE, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 21.11.2014 UNDER SECTION 272A(2) (C) FOR LEVYING PENALTY WAS SERVED ALSO UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSE SSEE FILED HIS REPLY DATED 8 TH DECEMBER 2014 AND AGAIN REITERATED HIS EARLIER STA ND THAT HE DOES NOT OWE ANY BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC GENEVA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE STAND IN THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE AS REFUS AL TO FILE CONSENT WAIVER FORM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE BASE NOTE CONTAINED ALL PERSONAL DETAIL OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING HIS NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, PLACE OF BIRTH, SEX, RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS, PROFESSION, NATION ALITY ALONG WITH THE DATE OF OPENING OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC GENEVA AND T HAT THE BANK ACCOUNT BUP_SIFIC_PER_ID 5090178703 HAS LINKAGE WIT H THE BANK ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO BALSUM TRUST, AND THAT ALL T HE DETAILS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ACCOUNTS BELONG TO ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 7 ASSESSEE WILFULLY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DO CUMENT AS A SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) LIST OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER LEVIED THE PENALTY OF 36400/UNDER SECTION 272A(2)(C). ON APPEAL BEFORE L D. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFI CER WAS CONFIRMED. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT NON-SIGNING OF CON SENT WAIVER FORM WOULD NOT HAVE AMOUNTED IN FURNISHING FALSE INFORMA TION BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT KNOWN FURNISHING CONSENT WAIVER FORM HAVE FURT HER ENABLED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATIO N IN THE SENSITIVE MATTER OF UNACCOUNTED FOR AN ACCOUNTS HELD BY INTERNATIONA L AND THAT IT HAD STUNTED INVESTIGATION. AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T SHOWN ANY REASONABLE CAUSE. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE OF PARTY AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 133(6), THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY STATED THAT HE DOES NOT OWN ANY BA NK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC, GENEVA AND THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR ASSESSEE TO SIGN SUCH CONSENT WAIVER FORM. THE ASSESSEE DULY REPLIED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) AS THERE WAS NO CAUSE TO TREAT THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE IS NON- COMPLIANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO LE VY THE PENALTY IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE REPLY THE QUESTION RAIS ED BY ASSESSEE OR TO FAIL ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 8 THE IN ATTENDING PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSE E DULY REPLIED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) DATED 19.12.2013. IN TH E REPLY DATED 08.12.2014, THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE OWNERSHIP IN RE SPECT OF THE ALLEGED BANK ACCOUNT WITH HSBC, GENEVA. HENCE, THE CONCLUSI ON ARRIVED BY ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WILFULLY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENT. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITY. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITS THAT TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONSENT WAIVER FORM TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT UNDER SECTION 272A(2 )(C). 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. A NARROW DISPUTE I N CONTROVERSY BEFORE US IS, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED/COMMITTED DEFAULT OF NON -COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 133(6). SECTION 133 DEALS WITH POWER TO CALL FOR I NFORMATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JOINT COMMI SSIONER OR COMMISSIONER. SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 133 PRESCR IBED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, JOINT COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER MAY REQUIRE ANY PERSON, INCLUDING A BANKING COMPANY OR ANY OFFICER THEREOF TO FURNISH INFORMATION IN RELATION TO SUCH POINT OR MATTER OR TO FURNISH STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT AND THE AFFAIRS VERIFI ED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THEM, WHICH WILL BE USEFUL FOR, OR RE LEVANT TO ANY ENQUIRY OR PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT. THESE POWERS CAN ALSO BE EXERCISED BY ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 9 PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DIRECTOR GENERAL, PRINC IPLE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR PRINCIPLE CHI EF COMMISSIONER. FURTHER, 2 ND PROVISO ATTACHED WITH THE SUB-SECTION PRESCRIBED T HAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT REFERRED TO IN SECTION 90 OR S ECTION 90A, AN INCOME- TAX AUTHORITY NOTIFY UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SUB-S ECTION 131 MAY EXERCISE ALL POWER CONFERRED UNDER THIS SECTION, NO TWITHSTANDING NO PROCEEDING ARE PENDING BEFORE IT OR ANY OTHER INCOM E-TAX AUTHORITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THOUGH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ALLEGEDLY HAVING INFORMATION IN THE FORM OF A BASE NOTE WHEREIN VARI OUS DETAILS OF ACCOUNT HOLDER WERE PROVIDED. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) SPECIFICALLY DENIED OWNERSHIP OR ANY RELATIO N OF ANY BANK ACCOUNT. 9. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY CATEGO RICALLY STATED NEITHER HE OWNED BANK ACCOUNT NOR HE HAS OWNED ANY RELATION SHIP WITH THE ALLEGED BANK ACCOUNT IN HSBC BANK, GENEVA. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT REBUTTING HIS REPLY THAT THERE WAS ANY MATE RIAL BEFORE HIM TO PROVE THE CONTRARY, HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY NOT SIGNING THE CONSENT WAI VER FORM. ONCE ASSESSEE HAS DULY COMPLIED WITH ALL THE NOTICES SEN T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE CANNOT TAKE THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO PRODUCE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENT. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT ON THE B ASIS OF SAME INFORMATION THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 12.03.2014. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ITA NO. 4667 MUM 2018-KANAIYALAL B. SHAH 10 THE LD. CIT(A) SPECIFICALLY CONTENDED THAT THE RE-O PENING PROCEEDING WAS DROPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR VIEW ONCE THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6), THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITION OF AFORESAID NOTICE. HENC E, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LEVY OF PENALTY BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SEC TION 272A(2)(C) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE PENALTY. NO CONTRARY FACT OR MATERIAL IS PLA CED BEFORE US. NO CONTRARY LAW IS CITED BY REVENUE TO TAKE THE OTHER VIEW. HENCE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 30/08/2019. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 30.08.2019 SK COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. DR H BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, DY./ASST. REGISTRAR TAT, MUMBAI