The Dy.Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot V. Smt. Neeru Aggarwal, Pathankot

ITA 499/ASR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60659 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reason to believe
• Section: 148

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. NOS.499& 544(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN:AASPA1600J DY. COMMR. OF INCOME-TAX, VS. SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL CIRCLE VI, PATHANKOT. W/O SH. JANAK RAJ AGGARWAL, 221, GANDHI NAGAR, PATHANKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. ROHIT KAPOOR, CA DATE OF HEARING :07/05/2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:10/05/2012 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARISE FROM TWO DIF FERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR, EACH DATED 14.07.2011 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. 2. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2011 HAS RAISED F OLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS ERRED IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 2 I.E. CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE XEM CPWD CONSTRUCTIO N DIVISION, B & R, PATHANKOT, WITHOUT ALLOWING REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. UNDER RULE 46A(3) OF THE IN COME TAX RULES, 1962. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS ERRED NOT TO CONSIDERING THE CERTIFICA TE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT DATED 25.01.2008, WHEREAS, THE TEHSILDAR HAS MENTIONED THAT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN M UNICIPAL LIMIT, PATHANKOT AND VILLAGE ISLAMPUR IS 5 KM. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY O R MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.544(ASR)/2011 HAS RAISED F OLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS AGITATED AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS.14,94,000/- ON 22.09.2011 QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT, THE CIT(A), AMRITSAR HAS ERRED IN CAN CELING THE PENALTY MERELY ON THE GROUND OF ITS BEING INEXIGIBL E HAVING NO LOCUS STANDI 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ADD ANY O R MORE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE R EVENUE IN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2011. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT. IN THE COMPUTATION ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASS ESSEE HAD GIVEN BY WAY OF NOTE THAT 1/3 RD SHARE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE ISL AMPUR, ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 3 TEHSIL PATHANKOT ( WHICH IS MORE THAN 9 KM AWAY FRO M PATHANKOT) SOLD ON 30.08.2005 FOR RS.16 LACS ONLY. THE LAND WAS PURCHA SED ON 17.11.2004 FOR RS. 1 LAC AND EXPENSES. BEING NOT ASSET, NO CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTACHED TWO SALE DEEDS WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE RETURN HAS BEEN FILED AS PER CERTIF ICATE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR, PATHANKOT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE SA ID CERTIFICATE OF THE TEHSILDAR, PATHANKOT, ISSUED IN THE CASE OF SMT. US HA RANI, CO-OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL WAS CONFRONT ED WITH A COPY OF TEHSILDAR LETTER NO. 247 DATED 25.01.2008 ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A, WHERE THE TEHSILDAR, PATHANKOT HAD I NFORMED THAT THE DISTANCE OF LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION IS AT A DISTA NCE OF 5 KM FROM MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATHANKOT. THE AO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH THE INTENTION TO EVADE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX ON SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF TH E LAND MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THE AO MENTIONED THE REASONS THAT THE GOVT. OF PUNJAB , DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT VIDE NOTIFICATION DA TED 31.11.2004 EXTENDED THE LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SUJANPUR UPTO MALIKPUR AND MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE SUJANPUR ESTABLISHED OCTROI POS T AT MALIKPUR AND THUS AT THE TIME OF SALE, THIS LAND WAS SITUATED O N THE ROAD INSIDE THE OCTROI POST. THE ANOTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE AO WAS WITH R EGARD TO A CERTIFICATE ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 4 ATTACHED AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE AOS ORDER ON THE BAS IS OF WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE FILED THE RETURN CLAIMING THE SHO RT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS DEFECTIVE/VAGUE, IN WHICH KHEWAT NO. KHOUTONI NO; K HASRA NO. ETC OF LAND OF SMT. USHA RANI WERE NOT MENTIONED. FOR WHAT PURP OSE THE CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED WAS ALSO NOT MENTIONED. ON THE SAME DAY TE HSILDAR MARKED THE LETTER TO HALKA PATWARI FOR REPORT, THE HALKA PATWA RI SUBMITTED THE REPORT ON 31.08.2005 STATING THEREIN THAT VILLAGE ISLAMPUR, H .B. NO.237 IS AT DISTANCE OF 9 KM FROM PATHANKOT. THE TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT SAM E DAY RETURNED THE LETTER IN ORIGINAL TO ASSESSEE. NOWHERE THERE IS ME NTION OF ASSESSEES LAND. THE SO-CALLED CERTIFICATE DO NOT HAVE ANY RECEIPT/ DISPATCH NO. OF THE OFFICE OF TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT AND HALKA PATWARI. THIRDLY, THE AO CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION REGARDING DISTANCE OF ASSESSEES LAND F ROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT FROM TEHSILDAR PATHAKOT VIDE NOTICE DATED 17.01.200 8 GIVING THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF KHEWAT NO; KHOUTONI NO; KHASRA NO. ETC. OF ASSESSEES LAND. THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON 18.01.2008 REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION ON 24.01.2008. ON 245.01.2008 SH. GOPAL KRIHAN KANUGO AND SH. ARVINDER KUMAR PATWARI SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND T HE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.01.2008. ON 28.01.2008, SH. RAMESH KUMAR PATWARI ATTENDED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT FOR 19.01.2008. SH. RAMESH KUMAR PATWARI FILED THE LETTER NO.247 DATED 25.01.2008 OF TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT. IT ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 5 WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ALLEGED CERTIFICATE I.E. CERTIFICATE MENTIONING THE DISTANCE OF 9KM IS MANIPULATED AND VAGUE DOCUMENT, THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH IS DOUBTFUL AND HAS BEEN OBTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION TO EVADE TAX ON SHORT TERM CAPIT AL GIN, WHICH HAS ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF LAND. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF NON-DISCLOSURE OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAI N WITHOUT BRINGING ANY POSITIVE EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. RATHER THE AS SESSEE HAD FURNISHED NOT ONLY TEHSILDAR PATHANKOTS CERTIFICATE IN WHICH A D ISTANCE OF 9 KM FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF PATHANKOT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE DATED 28.03.2008 FROM XEN, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION, PWD, B & R AND COPY OF THE REGISTRY OF LA ND EVIDENCING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION FALLS IN TEHSIL PATHANKOT. THEREFO RE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS WITHOUT ANY AUTHENTIC MEASUREMENT. AS PER AREA PATW ARI, PATHANKOT'S REPORT DATED 31.8.2005, THE LAND IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF 8 KMS FROM THE PATHANKOT MUNICIPALITY AND AS PER BOARDS NOTIFICAT ION ANY LAND SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS FROM PATHANKOT MUNICIPALITY LIMITS IS TO BE TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHETHER IT IS CULTIVATED OR REMAI NED VACANT. THEREFORE, THE ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 6 LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LLOWED THE RELIEF AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE A.O. 6. THE LD. DR, MR. TARSEM LAL, AT THE OUTSET ARGUED THAT THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI, IN ITA NO.416(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, DATED 14.03.2012 IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT C ASE. IN THAT CASE, THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH HAS REJECTED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE RELYING UPON THE TEHSILDARS CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005 AND I GNORING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TEHSILDAR DATED 25.01.2008 WHICH FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-A. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT DATED 25.01.2008 WHERE T HE TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT HAS MENTIONED THE DISTANCE BETWEEN MUNICIPAL LIMIT PATHANKOT AND VILLAGE ISLAMPUR IS 5 KM IS FORMED PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A. THE LD. DR, MR. TARSEM LAL ARGUED THAT HE HAD PERSONALLY MEASURED THE DISTANCE FROM THE OUTER LIMIT OF MUNIC IPAL COMMITTEE, PATHANKOT TO VILLAGE ISLAMPUR AND FOUND THAT THE DI STANCE BETWEEN THESE TWO POINTS IS 6 KM 300 MTRS WHEREAS TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT HAD ISSUED A CERTIFICATE DATED 25.01.2008 CERTIFYING THEREIN THA T THE DISTANCE BETWEEN OUTER LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATHANKOT AND V ILLAGE ISLAMPUR ON NATIONAL HIGH WAY IS 5 KM. THEREFORE, THE CERTI FICATE ISSUED BY THE ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 7 XEN, PWD, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION (B&R) IS NOT CORRE CT. THE SAID CERTIFICATE HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE AO BY TH E LD. CIT(A). MR. TARSEM LAL, THE LD. DR HAS PRAYED TO SUMMON TEHSILDAR PATH ANKOT OR XEN, PWD, CONSTRUCTION DIVISION (B&R) TO STATE THE EXACT DIST ANCE BETWEEN THE OUTER LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, PATHANKOT AND THE LAN D OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND FURTHER PRAYED TO REVERSE T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. ROHIT KAPO OR, CA, APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR, MR. TARSEM LAL TRIED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI (SUPRA) DECIDED BY THE T RIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 14.03.2012 WHERE THE BENCH HAS REJECTED THE A PPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI (SUPRA) RELYING UPON TEH SILDAR PATHANKOTS CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005 IGNORING THE CERTIFIC ATE OF THE TEHSILDAR DATED 25.01.2008 WHICH FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . IN THIS REGARD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT MISTAKE IF ANY IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEES AS A MATTER OF FACT CANNOT BE POINTED OUT IN OTHER ASSESSEES A PPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE MATTER IS IDENTICAL, WE DEAL WIT H THE SAME, WHICH ALSO ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 8 FORMS MERIT OF THE PRESENT CASE. AS PER RETURN FILE D BY THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, THE NOTE GIVEN WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS THAT TH E LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE ISLAMPUR TEHSIL PATHANKOT (WHICH IS MORE THAN 9 KM AWAY FROM PATHANKOT) HAS BEEN SOLD ON 30.08.2005. AS PER PAGE 2 OF AOS ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE LAST PARA OF THE SAID REASONS THAT AS PER LOCAL ENQUIRY THE PLOT IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE OF ABOUT 5 KM FROM NALWA BRIDGE OCTROI POST (MUNICIPAL LIMIT) AND LITTLE MOR E THAN 5 KM FROM KATH KA PUL OCTROI POST (MUNICIPAL LIMIT). THUS, THE LAN D IN QUESTION IS URBAN LAND AND THEREFORE, THE AO HAD REASON TO BELIEVE TH AT SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,94,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT . THUS, WITH THIS CERTIFICATE WHICH IS DATED 25.01.2008, THE ASSESSEE S COUNSEL WAS CONFRONTED. THE AO HAD IGNORED THE CERTIFICATE OF THE TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT ISSUED IN THE CASE OF SMT. USHA RANI WHO IS CO-OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. IN THE SAID CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005 AO POINTED OUT CERTAI N DEFECTS LIKE THE SAID CERTIFICATE HAS NO KHEWAT NO; KHAUTANI NO; KHASRA N O; ETC. AND THE SAME DAY REPORT WAS TAKEN FROM THE HALKA PATWARI AND THE SAID CERTIFICATE DO NOT HAVE ANY RECEIPT OR DISPATCH NO. ETC. THERE IS NOTH ING ON RECORD TO DISAPPROVE THE SAID CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005. T HE CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005 IS LATER THAN THE LETTER DATED 25.01.200 8 OF TEHSILDAR PATHANKOT REFERRED TO BY THE AO IN PAGE-4 AND RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR. THEREFORE, ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 9 THE LATER CERTIFICATE DATED 31.08.2005, UNLESS THE SAME IS DISAPPROVED BY THE REVENUE, THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE AO AND ARGU ED BY THE LD. DR CANNOT BE OF ANY HELP TO THE REVENUE. SIMPLY GIVING FINDINGS BY THE AO THAT THE SAID CERTIFICATE IS MANIPULATED AND VAGUE DOCUM ENT, THE GENUINENESS OF WHICH CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS DOUBTFUL AND THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE ALLEGED TO HAVE OBTAINED THE SAID CERTIFICATE WITH THE INTENTI ON TO EVADE TAX WITHOUT ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) HAD FURNISHED CERTIFICATE DATED 28.03.2008 FROM XEN, PW D (CONSTRUCTION DIVISION) (B&R), PATHANKOT AND COPY OF THE REGISTRY OF LAND EVIDENCING THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION FALLS IN TEHSIL PATHANKOT. TH OUGH NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE AO BUT THE SAME CORROBORATES THE CERTIFICATE OF PATWARI DATED 31.08.2005 AND NOT TEHSILDARS LETTER NO.247 DATED 25.01.2008. AS REGARDS THE PERSONAL MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE BY THE LD. DR, SH. TARSEM L AL, AT 6 KM 300 MTRS GOES TO PROVE THAT THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE TE HSILDAR VIDE LETTER NO.247 DATED 25.01.2008 IS NOT A CORRECT CERTIFICATE ON RE CORD. SUCH MEASUREMENT MADE BY THE LD. DR PERSONALLY, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD, BEFORE ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CANNOT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE AND THE REQUEST OF THE LD. DR TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT IN T HIS REGARD CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AT THIS STAGE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, AS ARGUED ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 10 BY THE LD. DR AT THE OUTSET THAT THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH HAD NOT DEALT WITH THE CERTIFICATE DATED 25.01.2008 AND THE SAME SHOUL D NOT BE RELIED UPON. THE SAID ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR IS REJECTED OUT RIGHTLY IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION HEREINABOVE. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE SAME IS UPHELD. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 10. NOW, WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO .544(ASR)/2011. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIL ED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 8.8.2006 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.68,130/- INTER ALIA CLAIMING EXEMPTION FOR LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SALE ON 30. 8.2005 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED BEYOND THE 8 KILOMETERS FROM PATHANKO T MUNICIPAL LIMITS IN WHICH HER SHARE WAS ONLY 1/3 RD . HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.14 ,94,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LTC GAIN BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEES LAND IN QU ESTION WAS SITUATED WITHIN 5-6 KILOMETERS FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF SUJANPUR. H OWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE TEHSILDARS CERTIFICATE AS WELL AS CERTIFICATE FROM THE XEN, PWD, THE LAND WAS ULTIMATELY FOUND TO BE SITUATED A T DISTANCE OF 8 KILOMETERS FROM PATHANKOT MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND THE L AND BELONGED TO PATHANKOT TEHSIL AND NOT SUJANPUR AS ALLEGEDLY HELD BY THE A.O. ON APPEAL, THE QUANTUM APPEAL WAS ACCEPTED VIDE ORDER DATED 14 .7.2011 IN APPEAL ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 11 NO.52/2011-12. HOWEVER, THE AO AFTER REJECTING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, HAS IMPOSED MINIMUM PENALTY IN ROUND FIGURES OF RS.4,20,000/- U/S 271(1 )(C) WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL DATED 24.09.2008. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) CANCELLED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER: SINCE ALL THE SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTER-CONN ECTED AND PERTAINS TO THE ONLY ISSUE THEREBY AGITATED THE PENALTY ORDE R PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY LEVYING A PENALTY OF RS.4,2 0,000/-, THESE ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. AS P OINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE THE VERY CAUSE GIVING RISE TO THE LEVY OF THE ABOVE SAID PENALTY DOES NOT EXIST, AS THE VERY BASIC ADDITION OF RS.14,94,000/- MADE B THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ALLEGED TO BE ARRIVED AT FROM THE SAL E OF THE SO-CALLED NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND AT PATHANKOT HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE ORDER DATED 14.7.2011 IN APPELLANTS QUANTUM A PPEAL NO.52/2011-12, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.4,20,000 /- HAS NO LOCUS STANDE AND NOW BECOME INEXIGIBLE IS LIABLE TO BE CA NCELLED IN TOTO. ON VERIFICATION, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE QUITE ACCURATE. IT IS NOW UNDISPUT ED THAT THE VERY BASIS I.E. THE BASIC ADDITION OF RS.14,94,000/- MAD E BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SO-CA LLED NON- AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN ABSOLUTELY DELET ED LEAVING NO CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LEVY OF ANY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT U /S 271(1)(C), ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IMPOSED AT RS.4,20,000/- U /S 271(1)(C) HAVING BECOME REDUNDANT, NON-EST AND INEXIGIBLE, I S HEREBY CANCELLED. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE CAS E, ALL THE SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPE LLANT ON LEGAL POINT, DISCUSSED SUPRA. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL NO.1 TO 6 STAND DISPOSED OFF ACCORDINGLY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. SINCE THE QUANTUM ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED BY US IN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2011, THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY H AS NO LOCUS STANDI AND ITA NOS. 499 & 544(ASR)/2011 12 IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED IN TOTO. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) . THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2011 & IN ITA NO. 544(ASR)/2011 ARE DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10TH MAY, 2012. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 10TH MAY, 2012 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE:SMT. NEERU AGGARWAL, PATHANKOT. 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE PATHANKOT, 3. THE CIT(A), ASR. 4. THE CIT, ASR. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH : AMRITSAR.