Sh. Hans Raj Thakur, Mandi V. ITO, Bilaspur

ITA 505/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 50521514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL MOHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Loose papers; Corroborative evidences; Non compliance; Condonation of delay; Reason to believe
• Section: 32; 144; 11; 80C; 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.504/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SH.HANS RAJ THAKUR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRANSPORTER, VILL.MANJKHETAR, SUNDER NAGAR (HP) . PO TALELI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI. PAN: AHIPR3657F ITA NOS.505 & 506/CHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SH.HANS RAJ THAKUR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TRANSPORTER, VILL.MANJKHETAR, BILASPUR (HP). PO TALELI, TEHSIL SUNDERNAGAR, DISTT. MANDI. PAN: AHIPR3657F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VISHAL MOHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.08.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : OUT OF THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TWO ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), S HIMLA DATED 09.03.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. THE THIRD APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME-TAX(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 20.03.2012 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 CONFIRMING 2 THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO.504/CHD/2012 : 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY LD.A.O. U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. THE PROCEEDINGS UND ER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE BAD IN LAW AND FACTS. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS OF RS 4413 87/-BY ESTIMATING THE NET INCOME FROM PLYING OF THREE BUSE S. THE ESTIMATION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE EASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE UNDER R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THAT THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW. 3. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 I.E. ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT DUE TO NON ATTENDANCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSE E IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 142(1)/143(2) OF THE ACT. THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT LENGTH VIDE P ARA 4.1 OF PAGES 3 TO 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3 4. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSI DERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE DOCUME NTS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE REPORT OF THE LD. A.O. AND THE CASE RELI ED UPON, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAD TO BE FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) AND 143(2) BY THE LD.A.O. FROM TI ME TO TIME. IT CLEARLY EMERGES FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT A NU MBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE APPELLANT TO FURN ISH HIS REPLY AS WELL AS THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.- ALL THE NOTICES WERE S ENT TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH THE REGISTERED POST AND NONE WAS RECEIVED B ACK BY THE A. O. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT A REFUND OF RS. 2 LACS FOR TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SENT BY THE ID. A.O. TO THE APPEL LANT ON THE SAME ADDRESS AS GIVEN IN THE RETURN WHICH WAS DULY RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE ANY EFFORT TO INTIMATE THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE CHANGE IN HIS ADDR ESS, IF ANY. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN HIS APPLICATION FOR CONDONATI ON OF DELAY IN FILLING THE APPEAL FOR THE A. Y. 2007-08. THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED THAT HE PROCURED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FROM THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, SUNDERNAGAR ON 13.01.2010 AS SOON AS HE CAME TO KNO W ABOUT THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 10.11.2009. THIS MEANS THAT WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO MONTHS ONLY THE A PPELLANT CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IN THE AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9, THE APPELLANT HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SENT TO HIM BY REGISTERED POST BY THE LD. A.O. WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM ON 2 8.12.2010. THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED ON 13.12.2010. THUS THIS ORDE R WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN 15 DAYS THROUGH REGISTERED POS T AT THE VERY SAME ADDRESS. THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS REGULARLY GETTING INTIMATION ABOUT HI S INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE FURTHER THAT I N HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE IN SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 OF THE I. T.ACT BECAUSE OF THE NON-APPEARANCE OF HIS C.A. THIS STAT EMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS A CLEAR ADMISSION OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE DULY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT HE HAD DIRECTED HIS C.A. TO ATTEND THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. THUS THE INTENTIONAL DEFAULT IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES LEADING TO EX -PARTE ASSESSMENTS STANDS FULLY ESTABLISHED. ALL THESE FACTS GIVE EVER Y REASON TO BELIEVE THAT 4 THE APPELLANT DELIBERATELY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE N OTICES SENT TO HIM REPEATEDLY BY THE LD. A.O. U/S 143(2) AND 142(1). T HUS IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO IS CLEARLY IN DEFAULT AND IS NOT, THEREFORE, JU STIFIED IN ARGUING NOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY VA LID SERVICE OF NOTICE AND WITHOUT AFFORDING HIM A DUE OPPORTUNITY. THE AP PELLANT'S RELIANCE ON THE CASE OF VALUKUTTY IS MISPLACED AS THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. THE ID. A.O. HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ON THE BASI S OF THE MATERIAL HE COULD REASONABLY GATHER U/S 133(6). 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A PPEALS) UNDER WHICH IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THOUGH SEVERAL OPPORTU NITIES WERE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THERE WAS TOTAL NON COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE REFUND OF RS.2 LACS ISSUED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION AND SENT TO THE SAME ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS FOR COMMUNICATION BEING INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN GROUND NO.1 RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION OF NET INCOME FROM PLYING OF THREE BUSES BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM PLYING OF THREE BUSES ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44AE OF THE ACT. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE OF THE VIEW THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME WERE TO BE APPLIED, WHERE THE PERSON WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING, HIRING OR LEASING OF GOODS CARRIAGES. 5 9. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTE D THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPL ICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COLLECTED CERTAIN DATA IN RE SPECT OF RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER EXPENSES AND SHOW CAUSED THE ASS ESSEE AS TO WHY THE INCOME SHOULD NOT BE COMPUTED IN THE FOLLOWING MANN ER: GROSS RECEIPTS OF HIRE CHARGES OF TWO BUSES = RS.1 2,73,896-00 LESS:-I) FUEL CHARGES REIMBURSED BY NTPC = RS. 4,61,320-00 II) DEPRECIATION ON BUSES @ 30% = RS. 1,48, 318-00 III) SALARY TO 2 DRIVERS AND 2 CONDUCTORS = RS. 2 ,16,000-00 IV) OTHER MISC. EXPENSES = RS. 70,00- 00 NET INCOME FROM TWO BUSES = RS.3,78,258-00 NET INCOME OF ONE BUS WORKS OUT TO RS.189129 (3782 58/2) AND THUS NET INCOME FROM PLYING OF THREE BUSES WORKS OUT TO RS. 567387/- (189129X3 BUSES) 10. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND HENCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED IN TH E ABOVE SAID MANNER AND ADDITION OF RS.4,41,387/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) HAD RAISED THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF E XPENDITURE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,20,350/-, WHICH W AS REJECTED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) AS THE SAID DOCUMENTS APPEARED TO BE FRESHLY PREPARED AND HENCE WERE REJECTED. 11. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS AL LOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ON L OWER SCALE VIS--VIS EXPENDITURE ALLOWED IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. THE AS SESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL HAD NOT PRODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, LEADING TO A SSESSMENT OF INCOME 6 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DATA C OLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM NTPC AND OTHER EXPENSES REIMBURSEMENT BY NTPC, WITH WHOM THE SAID BUSES WERE ENGAGED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN ALL FAIRNESS HAS ALLOWED FUEL EXPENSES, SALARY OF DRIVE RS & CONDUCTORS AND ALSO DEPRECIATION ON BUSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ALLOWED MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.35,000/- PER BUS. IN FAIRNESS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS EXPE NDITURE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ON THE LOWER SIDE AND TO M EET THE END OF JUSTICE WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURTHER ALLOW EX PENDITURE OF RS.2 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE RESULTING IN RESTRICTI ON OF ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TO RS.2,41,387/-. THUS GROUN D NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. TH E SAID GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE SAME IS D ISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO.505/CHD/2012 : 13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY LD.A.O. U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 AS VALID ASSESSMENT. FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE SAID PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS 142500/- AND ADDING BACK THE SAME. 7 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E EASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF T HE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD POWER, FUEL AND REPAIRS AND THEREBY SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.492157/-. 4. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDU CTION CLAIMED U/S 80C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPR ECIATION OF RS.11032. 6. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C1T(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE UNDER R ULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 14. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN ITA NO.504/CHD/2012. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORT UNITIES AFFORDED BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS142(1) & 143( 2) OF THE ACT FROM TIME TO TIME. IN LINE WITH OUR DECISION IN PARAS H EREINABOVE VIS--VIS THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 15. THE ISSUE IN GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON NEW BUSES PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR. THE SAID CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OF THE SAID ASSET BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION UNDER SECT ION 32 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE FIXED ASSET IS ALLOWABLE WHERE THE A SSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF AN ASSET, WHICH IS PUT TO USE IN THE BUSINESS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION A S PER THE RULES PRESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE TO THE INCOME TAX ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD MA INTAINED ITS BOOKS OF 8 ACCOUNT AND HAD FURNISHED LIST OF FIXED ASSET BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN WHICH IT HAD REFLECTED THE AFORESAID AD DITION IN THE FIXED ASSET. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, FAILED TO PRODUCE TH E EVIDENCE FOR PURCHASE OF THE SAID ASSET BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND HENCE THE SAID CLAIM WAS REJECTED. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE AFORESAID CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION IN CASE IT O WNS THE SAID ASSET AND HAD PUT THE SAME TO USE. WHERE THE RECEIPTS OF HIR ING VIS--VIS THE SAID BUSES HAVE BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS TOT AL RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION MERI TS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE AND IF FOUND TO BE CORRECT, TO AL LOW DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID ASSET AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SCHEDULE TO ACT. GR OUND NO.2 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SAME TO GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.504/CHD/2012. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN VIEW THEREOF 25% OF THE TOTAL EX PENSES CLAIMED WERE DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE MADE HUGE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AMO UNTING TO RS.24,89,459/- IN ADDITION TO THE DEPRECIATION AND HAD RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,05,560/-. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER, FAILED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM EXCEPT FOR THE SEL F SERVING EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALA NCE SHEET AND FRESHLY PREPARED VOUCHERS. THE CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS.4, 92,157/- BEING 19.7% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MERITS TO BE UPHELD. SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED IN ITA NO.50 4/CHD/2012 AND WE 9 HAVE UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IN THE HAN DS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE SAID ADDITION IS RESTRICTED TO RS.2,92,157/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE RESULTING IN DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS.2 LACS. THE GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO.4 HAD CLAIMED ALLOW ANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF LIC PREM IUM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN RESP ECT OF PAYMENT OF LIC AND HENCE, GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. 18. GROUND NOS. 5 AND 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.506/CHD/2012 : 19. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WE RE BASED ON THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND VOUCHERS MAINTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DESPITE SEVERAL NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTIONS 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIE D PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT AND IMPOSED PENALTY O F RS.25,000/- ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271A O F THE ACT. 20. IN THE APPELLATE ORDER AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THOUGH IT HAD MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT 10 THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER IT WAS THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO HAD NOT RETURNED HIM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THOU GH THE SAME WERE DULY MAINTAINED. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PR OCEEDING I.E. AGAINST THE QUANTUM ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COPY OF BA LANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND SOME FRESHLY PREPARED LOO SE PAPERS IN THE NATURE OF IN-HOUSE VOUCHERS, AND SOME FRESHLY GENER ATED COMPUTER PRINTS OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEA LS) WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUN T WHICH COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED ON A REGULAR BASIS IN THE DUE COURSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD PREPARED BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT PROVE THE FACT THAT HE HAD A CTUALLY MAINTAINED HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE PERUSAL OF THE SO-CALLED BAL ANCE SHEET SHOWS THAT THE SAME COULD BE EASILY PREPARED EVEN WITHOUT ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REGULAR BOOKS, THE GENUINENESS AND THE ACCURACY OF THE GIVEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ALSO HIG HLY DOUBTFUL. 21. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE PRESCRIBED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT MERELY BECAUSE IT HAD PRODUCED A BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) DURING THE APPELLA TE ORDER AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION ALONGWITH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS BEI NG THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E OF MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE ARE IN CONFO RMITY WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EXIGI BLE TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271A OF THE ACT. WE UPHOLD THE SAID LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER 11 SECTION 271A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.25,000/-. THUS, GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.506/CHD/201 2 IS DISMISSED. 22. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT A NOS.504 & 505/CHD/2012 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL IN I TA NO.506/CHD/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28 TH AUGUST, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH