Sh Chaman Lal Jain (HUF), Amritsar. V. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar.

ITA 504/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3725 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ KUMAR A RORA ITP
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 145; 27; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TR IBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 504(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SH. CHAMAN LAL JAIN(HUF) 165 SHASTRI NAGAR AMRITSAR. PAN: VS. DY. CIT CIRCLE V, AMRITSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. RAJ KUMAR A RORA (ITP) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 14.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11. 2016 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY (JM): THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR, DATED 30.06.2015, RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AMRITSAR HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.16,68,600/- LEVIED BY DY. CIT, CIR-V, AMRITSAR. 2. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR AND DY. CIT, CIR.V, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFF ERED THIS SUM OF RS.54,00,000/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION TO WIN PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT UNDER PROTEST, SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. 3. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR AND DY. CIT, CIR.V, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE QUNATITATIVE CLO SING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT AND ONLY THE METH OD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS ALTERED. 4. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR AND DY. CIT, CIR.V, AMRITSAR HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCREASE IN CLOS ING STOCK IN CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD RESULT IN INCREASE IN THE OPENING STOCK BY AN EQUAL AMOUNT IN THE NEXT ASSES SMENT YEAR. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 2 5. THAT BOTH THE LD. CIT(A), AMRITSAR AND DY. CIT, CIR.V, AMRITSAR HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE SURRENDER OF INC OME OF RS.54,00,000/- IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING IN COME OF RS.6,00,600/- ON 29.09.2009. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT INCOME OF RS.60,71,840/- MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.54,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL AGAINST THIS ORDER AND CIT(A ) DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 02.05.2012. T HE A.O HAS ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ALLOW AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSE E TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PENALTY SHALL NOT BE LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) AND IN RESPONSE TO SAME ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION VID E HIS LETTER DATED 28.03.2014 TO THE AO. THE GIST OF HIS RE PLY WAS THAT:- KINDLY REFER TO THE NOTICE U/S 271(L)(C) FOR 2007- 08 ASSESSMENT YEAR DT 19.03.2014 RECEIVED ON 28.03.201 4 FOR APPEAR BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF ON 28.03.2014 AT 11.30AM. THE APPELLANT STATED THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AR E AT ALL PENDING IN THE CASE OF SH. CHAMAN LAL JAIN. THE APP ELLANT STATED THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT AT ALL AND WHATEVER AD DITION WAS MADE, THE SAME WAS ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND AGREED BAS IS SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY AND NO PENAL ACTION. ACCORDINGLY HE REQU ESTED FOR DROPPING OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HOWEVER IN IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER STATED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED BECA USE VALUATION OF OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK AND PURCHASE AND SALE MAD E ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD OF ASSESSEE, SINCE THE T HEN AO DID NOT FIND THE VALUATION OF STOCK MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFO RE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. WHEN THESE FACTS W ERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE COME FORWARD FOR A SURRENDER OF RS.54,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLO SING STOCK BUT I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 3 SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. THE ADDITION OF RS.54,00,0 00/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF STOCK BUT THE PLEA FOR NON INTIMATE PENAL ACTION WAS REJECTED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH N O OTHER ALTERNATIVE. HAD THE DISCREPANCY NOT BEEN TRACED OUT, TH E ASSESSEE WOULD NEVER COME FORWARD FOR SUCH SURRENDER. IT WAS THE OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION AND REJECTION OF THE BOOKS BY THE AO . MOREOVER, SPECIFIC DISCREPANCY IN STOCK VALUATION WAS DETECTED AT RS.5 4,26,582/- BUT SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.54 LAKH IN R OUND FIGURE WAS ACCEPTED AND REQUEST FOR NOT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEED INGS U/S 271(1) (C ) WAS REJECTED BY A.O. 3. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. DY. CIT, CIRVLE-V, AMRTISAR, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. DCIT, THE LD. CIT(A) ANALYZED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR T HE SAKE OF CLARITY, BREVITY & CONVENIENCE, THE RELEVANT PART OF T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT VALUED HIS S TOCK PROPERLY AND EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IN THIS REG ARD WAS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. THUS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSING OF FICER HAS CLEARLY MADE OUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSES SEE, WHO HAS LOWERED THE VALVE OF CLOSING STOCK INTENTIONALLY TO SHOW LOWER INCOME THAN TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME. IN THE CASE OF PREMPAL GANDHI VS. CIT 231 CTR (P&H) 100, THE FACTS WERE THAT AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT W AS COMPLETED, THE AO DISCOVERED CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN A ND OFFERED THE PEAK CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND INTEREST THER EON, WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY BE IMPOSED AND HE MAY NOT BE PROSECUTED. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 4 THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS. HE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND INITIATED PENALTY, AND AFTER FOLLOWING DUE PROC EDURE, IMPOSED THE PENALTY. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY ACCEPTI NG THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED HIGHER RETURN A ND SURRENDERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. H E PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. SURESH CHANDER MITTAL 251 ITR 9(SC). THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AND UPHELD THE PENALTY ORDER. THEY OB SERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 27 1 (L)(C) WAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN. E VEN IF THE INCOME WAS SURRENDERED IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE STILL HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INCOME WAS SHOWN AND WHY INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF BONA FIDE ERROR OR TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF ST ATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE MIGHT NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF DEFAULT U/ S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FULLY CO-OPERATED WITH R EVENUE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, WHEN FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ESC APING PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF FILING OF REVISED RETURN AFTER CONCEALME NT WAS DETECTED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE SUR RENDER OF INCOME WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT AS A RESULT OF DETECTION BY T HE AO, FILING OF REVISED RETURN WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IT WAS FURTHE R NOTED THAT SECTION 139(5) APPLIED TO LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES W HERE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THERE WAS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT AND NOT TO CASES OF CONCEALMENT OR FALSE STATEMENT. IT WAS NOTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE D ETECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 148. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING INITIATED WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE S INCE THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE. THE HONBLE TRI BUNAL NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISC LOSED TO THE DEPTT HAD THE DEPTT NOT DETECTED THE SAME. THEY ALS O NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDAN V. CIT 251 ITR 99(SC), IT WAS HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE LAID DOWN AS GENERAL PRESCRIPTION T HAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED FOR AGREED ASSESSMENT; ASSESSEE HAV ING SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS FOR A SSESSMENT CLEARLY ADMITTING THAT ENTRIES WERE NOT RECORDED BY HIM ON THE CORRECT DATES AND TEMPORARY LOANS OBTAINED BY HIM W ERE NOT RECORDED AT ALL, HE WAS LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(L )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 TO THE SECTION. IT WAS NOTE D THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FI LED DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE OR OMISSION IN THE ORIGINAL RET URN WHEN DECLARING MUCH LARGER INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL PLACED FURTHER RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.C. AGGARWAL VS. CIT 186 ITR 571 SC) AND I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 5 RAJESH CHAWLA VS. CIT 203 CTR (P&H) 209. THE HONBL E COURT UPHELD THE FINDING AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRA NSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEN NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT WAS IS SUED, FINDING NO OTHER WAY OUT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDER INCOME TO AVOID PENAL ACTION. IT WAS HELD THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT CO ULD NOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT, WHICH CALLED FOR PENALTY. IT WAS HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE WHERE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED HIGHER INCOME VOLUNTARILY BUT WA S HELD TO BE CASE OF CLEAR CONCEALMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAVING FOUND NO OTHER WAY OUT WAS FORCED TO SURRENDER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, A MERE SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SUBJECT TO NO PENAL TY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TO WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE OF CONCEALME NT OF INCOME DETECTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE SURRENDER WAS MA DE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER AGREED TO ASSESSEES CO NDITIONAL OFFER AND IT NEVER TURNED INTO AGREEMENT. WHEN ONE PARTY MAKES AN OFFER AND OTHER PARTY DOES NOT AGREE WITH IT, OFFER DOES NOT BECOME VALID AGREEMENT. FURTHER, THERE IS NO SUCH PROVISIO N IN THE ACT, WHERE SUCH OFFER CAN BE MADE AND ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT. QUESTION OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPELS DOES NOT ARISE. THE A.O HAS CL EARLY MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH PROPOS AL ONLY WHEN DEPARTMENT HAS DETECTED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND SUCH HUGE ADDITION HAS BEEN SHOWN OTHERWISE ASSESSEE WAS TRYI NG TO DEFEND HIS VALUATION OF STOCK EVEN AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CAU SE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON LY WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. HA D THE DISCREPANCY NOT BEEN TRACED OUT, ASSESSEE WOULD NEVER HAVE COME FORWARD FOR SUCH SURRENDER. THE SURRENDER WAS THE OUTCOME OF SP ECIFIC DISCREPANCY IN STOCK VALUATION, DUE TO INVESTIGATIO N AND REJECTION OF THE ASSESSEES BOOKS ACCOUNTS. THUS , IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND SIMILAR VIEW OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT , THE A.O HAS CORRECTLY LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 16,68,600/- U/S 271 (1)(C) FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . HENCE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED ON ALL GROUND OF APPEAL . 5. FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE INSTANT APPEAL ON THE GROUNDS AS ME NTIONED IN PARA-1 OF THE ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE F EEL IT APPROPRIATE I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 6 TO TAKE UP GROUNDS NO.1 TO 5 SIMULTANEOUSLY AS THE RESUL T WOULD BE THE SAME OF ALL GROUNDS. 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA FILING THE STAT EMENT OF FACTS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY HAS GRO SSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.16 ,68,600/- AND FURTHER IT WAS AGITATED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THIS SUM OF RS.54 LACS BEING DIFFERENCES IN VALUATION TO WIN PEACE WITH THE DEPARTM ENT UNDER PROTEST, SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. FURTHER, IT WAS AL SO CONTENDED BY THE LD. AR THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE QUANTITATIVE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT AN D ONLY THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS ALTERED. AS THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE F AILED TO APPRECIATE THAT INCREASE IN CLOSING STOCK IN CURRENT ASST. YEAR WOULD RESULT IN INCREASE IN THE OPENING STOCK BY AN EQUAL AMOU NT IN THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND FURTHER HE HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN TREAT ING THE SURRENDER OF INCOME OF RS.54,00,000/- IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AS AN ADMISSION OF GUILT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, IT CLEARLY REFLECTS FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONT ED TO THE ASSESSEE QUA BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THAT HE HAS NOT PROPERLY MAIN TAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO METHOD OF VALUATION OF O PENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK IS DEFECTIVE AND FURTHER IT WAS CONFRONTE D TO THE ASSESSEE THAT INVENTORIES OF OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOCK A ND PURCHASE AND SALE ARE NOT IDENTIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE NOTIFIED ACCOUNTING STANDARD WITH REGARD TO THE VALUATION OF CLO SING STOCK. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO DOUBTED AND REMAINED UNSATISFIED WITH THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNT AND VALUATION OF CLOSING I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 7 STOCK AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED U/S 145A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEN ONLY ON THE CONFRONTATION OF THE AFORESAID F ACTS AS MENTIONED IN PARA, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO SURRENDER OF RS.54,0 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. 8.1 FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO QUA SATISFACTION FOR I NITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, IT CLEAR LY REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FULLY SATISFIED HIMSELF WITH REGARD TO TH E FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED. 8.2 EVEN OTHERWISE, WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) THE DCIT CONSIDERED AND ANALYZED THE FACTUAL POSITION AS WELL AS JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH IN APPEAL NO.339(IT)CIT(A) /11-12 AND FINALLY PASSED THE REASONED ORDER WHILE IMPOSING THE PE NALTY @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, AT MINIMAL SIDE. RELE VANT PART OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT, AMRITSAR IS REPRODUCE D HEREIN BELOW. 03. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.03.2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON HE ASSESSEE ON 28.03.2014. IN COMPLIANCE TO THIS NOTICE, SH. RAJ KUMAR ARORA, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, FURNISHED A WRITTE N SUBMISSION DT. 28.03.2014 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS N O CONCEALMENT AT ALL. THAT WHATEVER THE ADDITION WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE SAME WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND ALSO ON AGREED BASIS, SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY AND NO PENAL AC TION. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 8 IN VIEW OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE AFORESAID PENALTY PROCEEDING MAY BE DROPPED. THE AFORESAID AD DITION WAS SURRENDERED TO WIN PEACE AND TO HAVE GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS THE KARTA IS MORE THAN 80 YEARS OF AG E. 8.3 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONCLUDING AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE PENALTY ALSO ANALYZED AL L THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AND CAME TO THE RIGHT CONCLUSION BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.54 LAKH WI TH THE REQUEST NOT TO TAKE ANY PENAL ACTION ONLY ON THE CONFR ONTATION BY THE AO QUA DIFFERENCES IN STOCK AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AS WELL AS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DE FECTIVE METHOD OF VALUATION OF OPENING STOCK AS WELL AS CLOSING ST OCK WHICH WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE INVENTORIES AND OPENING STOCK A ND STOCK AND PURCHASE FROM THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FOLLOWING THE NOTIFIED ACCOUNTING STANDARD AND ALSO NON SATISFACTION OF THE AO WITH THE CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS NON RE LIABILITY OF THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AND ON REJECTION OF T RADING RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 145 A(3). ON THE AFORESAID C IRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO AVOID FURTHER ACTION, THE ASSESSEE OPTED TO SURRENDER THE AMOUNT OF RS.54.00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION CLOSING STOCK, SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION ONCE, HE HAS LEFT NO ESCAPED RO UTE. 8.4 THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR WITH REGARD TO THE OFFERING THE SUM OF RS.54,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE JUST TO WIN PEACE WI TH THE DEPARTMENT UNDER PROTEST, SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION WA S NEVER BEING I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 9 ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CANNOT BE MADE AS BIND ING CONTRACT, UNTIL AND UNLESS THERE MUST BE SPECIFIC SCHEME OR P ROPOSALS THERETO, BY THE GOVT. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT QUESTION OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPLE DOES NOT ARISE IN T HE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEVER AGREED TO ASSESSEES OFFE R AND THE SAME WAS NEVER TURNED INTO AGREEMENT. FURTHER CO NCLUSION THAT IF DISCREPANCIES HAD NOT BEEN TRACED OUT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NE VER HAVE CAME FORWARD FOR SUCH SURRENDER AND THE SURRENDER AMO UNT WAS THE OUT COME OF SPECIFIC DISCREPANCIES IN STOCK VALUATION, DU E TO INVESTIGATION AND REJECTION OF THE ASSESSES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFLECTS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYIN G TO DEFEND THE VALUATION OF STOCK EVEN AFTER ISSUE OF SHOW CA USE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. EVEN OTHERWISE, IN A CASE DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN PRAM PAL GANDHI 231 CTR P &H, (100), THE FACTS ARE THAT AFTER THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED , THE AO DISCOVERED CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS IN WHICH THERE WAS SUBSTANTI AL TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND IS SUED NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN AND OF FERED THE PEAK CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND INTEREST THEREON , WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY BE IMPOSED AND HE MAY NOT B E PROSECUTED. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONDITIONS AND HE COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER FO LLOWING DUE PROCEDURE, IMPOSED THE PENALTY. THE CIT(A) DELETED TH E PENALTY I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 10 ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FILED H IGHER RETURN AND SURRENDERED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. HOWEVER, THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT REVE RSED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF THE JU DGMENT REPRODUCED AS UNDER. THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) A ND UPHELD THE PENALTY ORDER. THEY OBSERVED THAT THE QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 271 (L)(C) WAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ORIGINAL RETURN. EV EN IF THE INCOME WAS SURRENDERED IN THE REVISED RETURN, THE ASSESSEE STILL HAD TO EXPLAIN WHY THE INCOME WAS SHOWN AND WHY INACCU RATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF BONA FIDE ERROR OR TECHNICAL OR VENIAL B REACH OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS, THE ASSESSEE MIGHT NOT BE HELD GUIL TY OF DEFAULT U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FULLY CO-OPERATED WITH REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HOWEVER, WHEN F ROM THE VERY BEGINNING THE ASSESSEE HAS INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED IN COME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF ESCAPING PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF FILING OF RE VISED RETURN AFTER CONCEALMENT WAS DETECTED BY REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE SURRENDER OF INCOME WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT AS A RESULT OF DETECTION BY THE AO, FILI NG OF REVISED RETURN WAS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED THAT SECTION 139(5) APPLIED TO LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES WHERE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THERE WAS ANY OMISSION OR ANY WRONG STATEMENT A ND NOT TO CASES OF CONCEALMENT OR FALSE STATEMENT. IT WAS NOTED T HAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DETECTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 148. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION SUBJE CT TO NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEING INITIATED WAS OF NO CONSEQUE NCE SINCE THIS WAS NOT A CASE OF VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WOULD NOT HAVE B EEN DISCLOSED TO THE DEPTT HAD THE DEPTT NOT DETECTED THE SAME. THEY ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDAN V. CIT 251 ITR 99(SC), IT WAS HELD THAT IT COULD NOT BE LAID DOW N AS GENERAL PRESCRIPTION THAT NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED FOR AGREE D ASSESSMENT; ASSESSEE HAVING SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 11 UNEXPLAINED CREDITS FOR ASSESSMENT CLEARLY ADMITTING THAT ENTRIES WERE NOT RECORDED BY HIM ON THE CORRECT DATES AND TEMPO RARY LOANS OBTAINED BY HIM WERE NOT RECORDED AT ALL, HE WA S LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT READ WITH EXPL ANATION 1 TO THE SECTION. IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SH OW THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE OR OMISSION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN WHEN DECLARING MUCH LAR GER INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL PL ACED FURTHER RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF G.C. AGGARWAL VS. CIT 186 ITR 571 SC) AND RAJESH C HAWLA VS. CIT 203 CTR (P&H) 209. THE HONBLE COURT UPHELD THE FINDING AND THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE HONBLE T RIBUNAL NOTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEN NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT WAS ISSUED, FINDING N O OTHER WAY OUT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDER INCOME TO AVOID PEN AL ACTION. IT WAS HELD THAT IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT COULD N OT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT, WHICH CALLED FOR PENALTY. IT WA S HELD THAT THIS WAS NOT A CASE WHERE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED HIGHER INCOME VOLUNTARILY BUT WAS HELD TO BE CASE OF CLEAR CONCEALMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAV ING FOUND NO OTHER WAY OUT WAS FORCED TO SURRENDER UNDISCLOSE D INCOME. THUS, A MERE SURRENDER OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SUBJ ECT TO NO PENALTY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TO WHERE THERE IS EVID ENCE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME DETECTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE T HE SURRENDER WAS MADE. 8.5 IN THE INSTANT CASE, FACTS OF THE CASE (SUPRA) ARE ALSO SIM ILAR TO THE INSTANT CASE BECAUSE AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED ONLY ON T HE CONFRONTATION BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DI SCLOSE ANY REASON AS TO WHY HE CONCEALED THE INCOME. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER INTENDED TO SURRENDER THE ADDITIONAL I NCOME, IF THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. WERE NOT REVEAL ED/ CONFRONTED BY THE THEN AO AND THE SURRENDER OF RS.54 L AKH WAS JUST AN OUT COME OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND INVESTIGATIONS MA DE IN THE CASE, EVEN OTHER WISE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS AT MINI MAL SIDE. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER SPECIFICALLY IN REFERENCE TO GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT DESERVE ANY INTERFERE NCE BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR WHILE CONF IRMING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 12 9. THE LD. AR ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND THAT NO REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS ALLOWED BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY AND AS SUCH THE PENALTY ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 10. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUN D IS FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE HONBLE BENCH BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF ARGUING THE CASE PREFER RED TO FILE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PENALTY ORDER ITSELF, IT REFLECTS THAT THE LD. DCIT, WHILE PASSING THE ORDER DULY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION THE ADDIT IONAL GROUND RAISED VERBALLY BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ORDER O F LD. DCIT, SPECIFICALLY IN PARA NO.3 IT REFLECTS THAT A SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE U/S 271(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19 TH MARCH, 2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND ON 28 TH MARCH,2014, IN COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE, SH. RAJ KUMAR ARORA, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28 TH MARCH, 2014 AND WHILE DECIDING THE PENALTY, THE LD. CIT ONLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO FILE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE SENT BY DCIT AND FROM THE ORDER I TSELF, IT REFLECTS THAT THE LD. DCIT WHILE PASSING AN ORDER UNDER CHALLE NGE CONSIDERED THE REPLY HENCE, UNDER THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES AND CON SIDERATION OF THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE, THE GROUND NO.6 DOES NO T DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED AS IT IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE THAT NO REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WAS ALLOWED BEFORE IMPO SING THE PENALTY. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 13 12. THE LD. AR ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND VERBALLY T HAT NO NOTICE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER ITSELF IN BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED ON THIS SCO RE BECAUSE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. CHAMAN LAL JAIN AND PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED IN THE NAME OF SH. C.L. JAIN (HUG), WHEREAS THE ACTUAL NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS M/S. CHIMAN LAL JAIN(HU F). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT HOWEVER, IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROC EEDINGS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE SHOW BECAUSE NOTICE OF PENALTY NOT HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS VERSION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT AND FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE TO THE REQUIREMENTS TO NOTICE OF AO. 13. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT VALID NOTI CE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED HE APPEARED AND PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A S WELL AS PENALTY PROCEEDING AND IT IS WELL SETTLED BY THE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT THAT IF THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE OF NOTICE HAS BEE N CHALLENGED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN PURSUANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 TH EN THE SAME CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN VIEW OF THE SEC.292BB OF T HE ACT. THEREFORE, THE GROUND EVEN NOT RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL DOES NOT DESERVE ANY INTERFERENCE. 14. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE ADDITIONAL GROUND VERBALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS RELEVANT T O MENTION HEREIN THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN THIS GRO UND IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE T O CONSIDER THE OBSERVATIONS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ORDER. THE RELEVANT PART IS PRODUCED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND CLARITY. I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 14 HIS MAIN AGREEMENT IN APPEAL WAS THAT THE SO CALLE D NOTICE BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY WAS NOT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND THUS AS THE BASIS OF THAT VERY NOTICE, THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGA L. THE PHOTO COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DT.19.03.2014 ISSUED BY DC IT, CIR-V, AMRITSAR WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH WAS ISSUED IN THE NAM E OF SH. CHANMAN LAL JAIN, 165-A SHASTRI NAGAR, AMRITSAR. THE REPLY TO THIS NOTICE DT.28.03.2014 WAS FILED B Y COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO ON 30.04.2014 IN WHICH IT WA S STATED THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDING ARE PENDING IN THE CASE OF SH . CHAMAN LAL JAIN, ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT NO P ENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IN THIS CASE, WHERE NO PROPER SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE IS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IMPOSING THE PENALTY. THE ASSES SMENT & PENALTY RECORD OF THE AO WAS CALLED FOR AND PERUSED . THE APPELLANT HAD HOWEVER IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION TO THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE OF PENALTY NOT HAVING BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE A PPELLANT. THE PENALTY ORDER MENTION THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/ S 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.03.2014 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 28.03.2014 IN COMPLIANCE TO WHICH S H. RAJ KUMAR ARORA, COUNSEL OF ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN SUBM ISSION DATED 28.03.2014. THE APPELLANT FULLY PARTICIPATED IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDING FOR IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 27(1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE SAID OMISSIONS OF MENTIONING THE CORRECT NAME O F THE APPELLANT AS MR. CHAMAN LAI JAIN (HUF), IN THE SHOW CAUSE APPELLANT OF PENALTY FOR U/S 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT . ISSUED ON 19.03.2014, WILL NOT RENDER THE NOTICE INVALID IN V IEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC292B OF THE ACT. MORESO BECAUSE TH E PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)( C) WERE INITIATED ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 21.12.2011 MAKING AN ADDITION OF R S.54,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF STOCK. THEREFORE, THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)( C) DATED 19.03.2014 ISSUED BY AO TO SH. CHAMAN LAI JAIN WAS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. THUS, THE OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT TO THE SHOW CA USE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) DT. 19.03.2014 NOT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. EVEN OTHERWISE, JUDGMENT RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR W AS PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PANCHVATI MOTORS (P) LTD. 243 CTR 0183 (P&H HIGH COURT) , WHEREIN IT HAS I TA NO.504(ASR)/2015 AS ST. YEAR: 2009-10 15 BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAVING FILED RETURN STATING THAT THE SAME IS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S. 148 AND RAISED NO O BJECTION BEFORE THE AO REGARDING VALIDATING OF SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148, IT CANNOT BE CONTENDED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF S. 292BB THAT THERE WAS NO VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE; AS 292BB IS APPLICABLE TO ALL P ROCEEDINGS PENDING ON 1 ST APRIL, 2008. ON THE AFORESAID CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT A VALID NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ON TH E BASIS OF NOTICE ITSELF, HE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND WHILE PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER, THE LD. DCIT CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SU BMISSION, HENCE, THE INSTANT GROUND DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE ALLOWED AND HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALSO DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2016. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHR Y) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: 30.11.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: SH. CHAMAN LAL JAIN (HUF), AMRITSA R. (2) THE DCIT, CIRCLE-V, AMRITSAR. (3) THE CIT(A), ASR. (4) THE CIT, ASR. (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER