ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s. Global Automotive Components Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad

ITA 470/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6847 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONA MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: N K ARORA; AAKASH DEEPAK CAS
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Difference of opinion
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH : C NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.470/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04) ACIT, CIRCLE 1, VS. M/S GLOBAL AUTOMOTIVE COMPONE NTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. 151, SECTOR 16A, FARIDABAD. (PAN/GIR NO.AACCG7498R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.K. ARORA & SHRI AAKASH DEEPAK, CAS REVENUE BY : SMT. MONA MOHANTY, SR. DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR AY 2003-04, TAKING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FATS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENALTY O F RS.2,20,000 LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(10(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IT S INCOME AND BY DOING SO REDUCED ITS TAX LIABILITY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENAL TY OF RS.2,20,000 LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF A CIVIL STATUE LIKE INCOME TAX ACT AND THAT BREACH OF A CIVIL OBLIGATION ATTRACTS LEVY OF PENALTY WHETHER THE CON TRAVENTION WAS MADE BY THE DEFAULT WITH ANY GUILTY INTENTION OR NO T. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE PENAL TY OF RS.2,20,000 LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 196 1 IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH WAS EV EN CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 10.04.2007 IN APPEAL NO.209/05-06. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY MANUFACTURING AND EXPO RTING AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.596,450 ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE SHAPE OF PROPER RECORD FOR PURCHA SE OF MATERIAL AND ITS CONSUMPTION IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. THE AO F OUND PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA E NTERPRISES TO BE BOGUS SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E CONFIRMING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIE S AND REGARDING THE CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL PURCHASED. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THIS ISSUE WAS NOT CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.596,450. 3. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIO N OF RS.1983981 AND ONLY THE ADDITION OF RS.596,450 HAD BEEN CONFIRMED, SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONCEALED OF ITS INCOME; AND THAT THE ADDITION IN Q UESTION HAD BEEN MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION OF THE AO WI TH THAT OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE CONCERNED ISSUE. 4. OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO OFFER ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION, EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AO, VIDE ORDER DATED 20.2.2009, IMPOSED CONCEAL MENT PENALTY OF RS.2,20,000 ON THE ASSESSEE, FOR FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. 5. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) CANC ELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD P ROCEEDED TO LEVY THE PENALTY MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION H AD BEEN CONFIRMED, WITHOUT BRINING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY HAD NOT BONA FIDE RECORDED THE BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.596,450; TH AT THIS WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE, SINCE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT FROM ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS; THAT APROPOS THE AOS OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGISTER, THE NATURE OF THE BUSINESS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS SUCH THAT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES COUL D NOT BE MANAGED AND IT WAS, THEREFORE, THAT NO STOCK REGISTER WAS POSSIBLE TO B E KEPT; THAT THIS HAD BEEN DECLARED BY THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THEIR AUDIT REPORT DATED 29.8.2003; THAT AS SUCH, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N REJECTING THE MANUFACTURING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN SUCH RES ULTS HAD BEEN APPLIED BY THE AO ONLY PARTIALLY, WHEREAS OTHER ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE SEPARATELY; THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE PURCHASE BILLS CONCERNIN G THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTER PRISES WERE BOGUS SINCE THEY DID NOT CONTAIN TELEPHONE NUMBER OR SALE S-TAX NUMBER, WAS BASED MERELY ON SUSPICION WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE BILLS TO BE INGENUINE; THAT THESE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES I N THE BILLS WERE IRREGULARITIES NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO ITS SAID T WO CREDITORS; THAT BESIDES, SUCH IRREGULARITIES IN THEMSELVES, DID NOT ESTABLISH THA T THE PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE; THAT MOREOVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSEE, VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 24.01.2006, HAD CONFIRMED THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES HAVING BEEN MADE FORM M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTERPRIS ES; THAT THE AO HAD MADE NO EFFORTS TO COUNTER THE SAID REPLY OF THE AS SESSEE; THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FURNISHED THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF M/S SH ARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTERPRISES FOR THE NEXT TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, SO AS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THESE PARTIES, THEREBY TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS; THAT HOWEVER, THE AO HAD SIMPLY IGNORED THESE LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND HAD NO T VERIFIED THEM; THAT THOUGH THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE PARTIES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT HAD RETURNED TO THE AO, THE AO HAD NOT RECORDED ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE; THAT THE AO HAD ALSO ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, SINCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOT HING FURTHER WAS ASKED OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE AO; THAT IN THE PENALTY PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED BANK STATEMENTS TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS MADE TO; THAT HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAD NOT VERIFIED THE ENTRIES OF S UCH BANK STATEMENTS; THAT NEITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOR IN THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HAD THE AO CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE NATURE OF THE P URCHASES; THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD GOT ITS ACCOUNTS DULY AUDITED BOTH, AS PER THE COMPANIES ACT, AS WELL AS ACCORDING TO THE INCOME-TAX ACT; THAT THIS SHOWED THAT EVERYTHING HAD BEEN RECORDED THEREIN PROPERLY, CONCERNING THE MANU FACTURING RESULTS; THAT THE AUDITORS OF THE COMPANY HAD BASED THEIR TAX AUDIT R EPORT ON THIS AND THE TAX AUDIT REPORT HAD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO, INASMUCH AS THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE OTHER PURCHASES/ACCOUNTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY ON THE BASIS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CONTEST ED THE ADDITION OF RS.596,450, IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION; THAT ALL TAXES ON THE ADDITION HAD BEEN DULY PAID; THAT THE AO HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F URNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME; THAT THE AO HAD ALSO NOT CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE ADVERSE INFERENCES DRAWN BY HIM (THE AO), BY AF FORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE; THAT THE AO HAD RATHER DRAWN HIS O WN ADVERSE OPINION AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; AND THAT NOT CONTESTI NG THE ADDITION WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO PENAL CONSEQUENCES. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 7. CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD.DR HAS CONTEN DED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELING THE PENALTY RIGHTLY LEVIED B Y THE AO; THAT WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME SO AS TO REDUCE ITS TAX L IABILITY; THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE POSITION THAT THE PENALTY WAS L EVIABLE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT; T HAT IT IS IMMATERIAL THAT THE DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS WITH OR WITHO UT A GUILTY INTENTION; THAT THE CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FIL ED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AND THE CONSUMPTIO N OF THE MATERIAL STATELY PURCHASED FROM M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTE RPRISES; THAT THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT WHEN THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE SAID TWO PARTIES W ERE SEEN, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO PAYMENT HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE PART IES, THOUGH PURCHASES HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN JULY/AUGUST, 20 02; THAT IN THESE FACTS, IT WAS STRIKING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE TH E ADDITIONS MADE; THAT LOOKED AT FROM ANY ANGLE, THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS UNSUST AINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW; AND THAT THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT BE ALLOWED, THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE CONFIRMED . 8. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INC OME. ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO PAGE 122 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK (APB, F OR SHORT). THIS PAGE CONTAINS PARA.28(A) OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. IT HAS BEEN PO INTED OUT THAT THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER. THEN, ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO APB 53 , I.E., THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND APB 54-55, A COPY OF THE LED GER ACCOUNT OF M/S RAMA ENTERPRISES, FROM 01.4.2002 TO 31.3.2006. FROM TH IS, IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANK, THE DE TAILS OF WHICH PAYMENT ARE CONTAINED IN THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN CONT ENDED THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NEXT YEAR. ATTENTION IN THIS REGA RD HAS BEEN DRAWN TO APB 56- 63, WHICH IS A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY SHOWING PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA EN TERPRISES. APB 51-52 IS A COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 11.2.2009 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT AL L THE AFORESAID EVIDENCES WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE SO FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AR E DISTINCT FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN FURNISHED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT ALL THE EVIDENCE HAVING BEEN SO FURNISHED, THERE WAS NO CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF ITS INCOME. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A PERFECTLY LE GAL ORDER, WHICH IS ENTITLED TO BE SUSTAINED BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE QUESTION IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND AN Y ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THERE IS NOTHING EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, OR IN THE PENALTY ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED THE BOGUS PURCHASES OF RS.596,450. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, I..E., MANUFACTURE AND EXPORT OF AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS, QU ANTITATIVE DETAILS COULD NOT BE MANAGED. THAT BEING SO, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP A STOCK REGISTER. MOREOVER, THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAD ALSO DECLARED THIS FACT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. NOT ONLY THIS, THE A O HAD REJECTED THE MANUFACTURING RESULT OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY QUA A PART OF ITS BUSIN ESS. THE ADDITION OF RS.596,450 WAS MADE ON ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTERPRISES. THE O THER ADDITIONS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD BEEN MADE SEPARATELY. FURTHER, THE AO REJECTED THE PURCHASE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT THEY DID NOT BEAR TELEPHONE NUMBER OR SALES-TAX NUMBER, NOTHING ELSE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THESE BILLS WERE BOGUS. THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THESE ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES IN THE BILLS WERE MERE IRREGU LARITIES WHICH TOO, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO THE TW O CREDITOR PARTIES, I.E., M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S RAMA ENTERPRISES. ALSO, BY THEMSELVES, THESE SHORTCOMINGS IN THE PURCHASE BILLS DO NOT GO TO PR OVE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT GENUINE. WHEN IN ITS REPLY BEFORE AO, THE ASSE SSEE HAD STATED THAT THE PURCHASES HAD IN FACT BEEN MADE FROM THESE PARTIES, THE RIGHT COURSE FOR THE AO WOULD HAVE BEEN TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES FROM THE PARTIES. THIS, HOWEVER, WAS NOT DONE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE LEDGER AC COUNTS OF THE PARTIES FOR THE SUBSEQUENT TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS, EVIDENCING THE PAY MENTS HAVING BEEN MADE TO THEM AND, THEREBY ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTIONS. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO TAKE THESE LE DGER ACCOUNTS INTO CONSIDERATION AND TO VERIFY THEM. STRIKINGLY, WHEN THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THE PARTIES WERE RETURNED TO THE AO, NO ADVERSE INFEREN CE WAS DRAWN. NO FURTHER QUESTION WAS ASKED OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE H AD FURNISHED BANK STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . AGAIN, HOWEVER, THE AO MADE NO VERIFICATION OF THE ENTRIES IN SUCH BANK AC COUNTS. THE NATURE OF PURCHASES WAS ALSO NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE B Y THE AO EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, OR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED AS PER T HE COMPANIES ACT AND ALSO AS PER THE INCOME TAX ACT, PROVIDING A PRESUMPTION THAT THE MANUFACTURING RESULTS RECORDED THEREIN HAD BEEN RECORDED PROPERLY . THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS NOWHERE DISPUTED BY THE AO. IN FACT, THE AO HIMSEL F ACCEPTED THE OTHER PURCHASES/ACCOUNTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THESE WE RE BASED ON THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING NOT CHAL LENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.596,450, BY ITSELF, IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE SO FAR AS REGARDS THE LEVY OF PENALTY. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FR OM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE REQUIREMENT OF FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS HAS TO BE INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISHED, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE HEREIN. THE ADDITION WAS NOT CHALLENGED SO AS TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE. MOREOVER, AGAIN UNDISPUTEDLY, DUE TAXES ON THE ADDITION STAND PAID. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS THAT THE AO HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS REQUIREMENT DOE NOT STAND FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW AS TO H OW THE AO WAS SATISFIED OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING COMMITTED THE DEFAULT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE PA YMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TWO PARTIES, I.E., M/S SHARMA TRADERS AND M/S R AMA ENTERPRISES, WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE DET AILS OF SUCH PAYMENT WERE TO BE FOUND IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT DULY FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY OVERLOOKED BY THE AO. THE BANK STATEME NT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALSO DEPICTS SUCH PAYMENTS. THE PRESENT IS A CASE OF COMPLETE MISREAD AND NON-READING OF MATERIAL BROUGHT ON THE RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REMAINED UNSUCCESSF UL IN DEMONSTRATING AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF ITS INCOME. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. THE GRIEVANCE SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT THR OUGH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTME NT IS DISMISSED. 12. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29/10/2010. SD/- SD/- (K.G. BANSAL) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 29/10/2010. SKB COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES