Sri Manish Mundra, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T CC - XXX,kolkata., Kolkata

ITA 469/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 46923514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH A KOL KATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & SHRI M.B ALAGANESH, AM ] ITA NOS.469 & 470/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA -VERSUS- A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRC LE-XXX, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AHKPM 2315 H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI RAVI TULSIYAN, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI RAJAT SUBHRA BISWAS, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 09.12.2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.12.2015. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TW O ORDERS BOTH DATED 26.12.2012 OF CIT(A)-CENTRAL -III, KOLKATA, RELATIN G TO AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENG ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREBY THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO IN IMPOSING PE NALTY ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH PENALTY U/ S 271(1) OF THE ACT IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO ARE AS FOLLOWS :- THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2003 -04 & 2004-05 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 8,43,300/- (INCLUDING LTCG OF R S. 6,62,942/-) AND RS.L3,35,401/- (INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) OF RS.9,66 ,102/-) ON 30.9.2003 & 18.10.2004 RESPECTIVELY. ON THIS LTCG ON SALE OF SH ARES, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAX @ 10% AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 112 OF THE ACT . THEREAFTER A SEARCH WAS INITIATED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14/2/2008. NO IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN 2 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 THE COURSE OF SEARCH. NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.8.2009 FOR BOTH THE A FORESAID AYS DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS WAS DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. 3.1. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING U/ S 153A/143(3), THE AO SENT A LETTER TO THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE FOR THE VERIF ICATION OF THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IN ITS RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER, THE C ALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OU T IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. BASED ON THE SAID INFORMATION, THE AO PROPOSED TO T REAT THE LTCG DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. RESULTANT LY THE SUM DECLARED AS LTCG WILL GET TAXED AT A HIGHER RATE THAN 10%. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT THE LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN IS HIS REGULAR INCOME ON WHICH TAX IS TO BE CHARGED AT NORMAL RATES. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE SUCH OFFER WAS MADE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS SHALL NOT BE INITIATED OR IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. 3.2. THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A/1 43(3) OF THE ACT DATED 31-12- 2009 WHEREIN HE ASSESSED THE AMOUNT OF RS.6,62,942/ - AND RS.9,66,102/- FOR AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 AS HIS REGULAR INCOME AND CHARG ED TAX AT THE NORMAL RATE OF TAX. THE AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY INVOKI NG EXPLANATION 5A TO SEC. 271 OF THE ACT. 4. IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPLY OF THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE THAT THERE EXISTS A MISMATCH IN THE NUMBER OF SHARES SOLD AND THAT EVEN IN CASES THE SA LE HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF A DIFFERENT PERSON YET, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE BY THE B ROKER IS NOT A CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN SUPPORT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS, CO PIES OF CONTRACT NOTE FOR SALE, COPY OF DEMAT ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THA T THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSEE PLE ADED THAT THE FACT THAT THERE WAS 3 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 MISMATCH BETWEEN THE SHARES SOLD BY THE BROKER ON E NQUIRY FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGE CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GU ILTY OF HAVING FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE AGREED TO TAXING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES ONLY TO BUY PEACE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE CONCE ALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE INCOME AS REPORTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND THE INCOME THAT WAS BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.15 3A OF THE ACT ARE ONE AND THE SAME AMOUNT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY BECA USE OF THE FACT THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT 10% WHEREAS T HE SAME, IF CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, IT WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX A T A MUCH HIGHER RATE CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO HOLD THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE AO OR CIT(A). BOTH AO AND CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE I S GUILTY OF HAVING FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OF ASSESEE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOE VER WAS FOUND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF IN COME FOR A.YRS. 2003-04 AND 2004- 05 WITHIN THE DUE DATE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND TH ESE RETURNS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN A PROCE EDING U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ONLY INCOME ARISING OUT OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN RESPE CT OF RETURNS ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT, THE SAME COULD BE REVISITED IN PROCEEDING S U/S 153A OF THE ACT ONLY IF THERE 4 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 ARE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IT WAS ONLY A ROUTINE ENQUIRY MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT, CONSEQUENT TO WHICH THE IMPUGNED A DDITION WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS WAS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT. IN TH IS REGARD OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH I N THE CASE OF ACIT VS M/S. DELHI HOSPITAL SUPPLY PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.3996/DEL/2011 O RDER DATED 01.10.2015 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS FOLLOWS :- '7. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD TH AT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, AS A RESULT, NO DISALLOWAN CE I ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A OF THE I T. ACT. EVEN OTHERWIS E, WE FIND FORCE IN THE LD. COUNSEL'S SUBMISSIONS THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS ALSO COVER ED BY THE' DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(CENTRA L)-III VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA NO. 707, 709, 713IDE112014 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT HAS HELD THAT IF THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE, BUT NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERI AL FOUND DURING SEARCH OPERATION, THEN THESE ADDITIONS WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EY ES OF LAW. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE. KEEPING IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE LD. CIT(A)'S ORDER WHICH IS A WELL REASONED ORDER A ND THEREFORE, THE SAME DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART AND ALSO BY RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT(CENTRAL)-III VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIG HTLY ITA NO. 39961DE112011 DELETED THE ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE.' IN THE GIVEN CASE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 STOOD CONCLUDED AND WERE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARC H. HENCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE THE AO WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO DISTURB THE CONCLUDED A SSESSMENTS AND FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENTS. THE POWER OF THE AO TO FRAME ASSESSMEN T U/S 153A OF THE ACT IS LIMITED TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT COMING TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, IN THE GIVEN CASE NO MA TERIAL WAS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT LTCG WAS BOGUS AND WAS UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM EARLIER YEARS. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MAINLY MA DE ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACTS THAT ON ENQUIRY, THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS A MISMATCH IN THE SAID SHARES AS SOLD BY THE SAID BROKER AND THAT EVEN THE SALE HAS BEEN EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF A DIFFERENT PERSON. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION AL ONE THE LD. AO PROCEEDED TO CONCLUDE THAT THE LTCG IS BOGUS AND IS ACTUALLY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN AY 2003- 04 & 2004-05. 5 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 7.1. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE THE RETUNED INCOME AND THE ASSESSED INCOME ARE ONE AND THE SAME NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD OU R ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, PRI OR TO ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009, W.R.E.F. 1.6.2007 WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS :- 'EXPLANATION 5A - WHERE, IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FO UND TO BE THE OWNER OF- (I) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HI S INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (II) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND HE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ENTRY IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WHOLLY OR IN PART) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE D UE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR HAS EXPIRED AND THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FILED THE RETURN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE SHALL, FOR THE P URPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, BE D EEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F SUCH INCOME. ' EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AFT ER ITS SUBSTITUTION BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2009, W.R.E.F. 1.6.2007, READ AS FOLLOWS: EXPLANATION 5A. WHERE, IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS FO UND TO BE THE OWNER OF ( I ) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THA T SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR I N PART) HIS INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR; OR ( II ) ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN ANY BOOKS OF AC COUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS AND HE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ENTRY IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS REPRESENTS HIS INCOME (WH OLLY OR IN PART) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND, ( A ) WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEA R HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE BUT SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN; OR ( B ) THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR HAS EXPIRED BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN, THEN, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, HE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE ( C ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION, BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. 6 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 7.2. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE E XPLANATION 5A AS APPLICABLE FROM 1.6.2007, WOULD APPLY ONLY WHERE IN THE RETURN OF T HE INCOME FILED EARLIER IN THE REGULAR COURSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME THAT HAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. SINCE THE INCOM E ALREADY DECLARED IN THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT INCLUDES THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION 5A WO ULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEREFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE A SSESSEE. 8. THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO/CIT (A). 9. WE HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND T HE INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT ARE ONE AND THE S AME. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE A SSESSEE. IF AT ALL THE REVENUE WANTS TO IMPOSE PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE, THEN, IT HAS TO TAKE RECOURSE TO EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS RIGHTLY CONTEN DED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, EXPLANATION 5A WOULD BE ATTRACTED ONLY I N THE CASE WHERE THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME RETURNED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND TH E INCOME ULTIMATELY BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED IN THIS CASE. 10. WE ALSO ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ADMITTED FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF S EARCH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF T HE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS M/S. DELHI HOSPI TAL SUPPLY PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESEE IN THIS RE GARD. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE TWO INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS AND 7 ITA NOS.469&470/KOL/2013 SHRI MANISH MUNDRA ,A.Y. 2003-04 & 2004-05 THAT THE ASSESSEE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ENTITL ED TO SHOW THAT THE VERY ADDITION FOR WHICH PENALTY IS SOUGHT TO BE IMPOSED OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE, THEREFORE, ARE OF THE VIEW THAT EV EN ON THIS GROUND PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. WE DIRECT THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS BE CANCELLED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16.12.2015. SD/- SD/- [M.BALAGANESH ] [ N.V.VASUDEVAN ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16.12.2015. [RG PS] COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.SRI MANISH MUNDRA, P-5, KALAKAR STREET, KOLKATA-7 00007. 2. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXX, KOLKATA 3. CIT(A)-CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA 4. CIT-CENTRAL III, KOLKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES