M/s Bakers Circle India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5112/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 66027 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRITHI LAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bonafide belief; Question of law; Wrong claim; Bonafide mistake; Revenue expenditure

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 5112/DEL/2012 A.Y. : 2008-09 M/S BAKERS CIRCLE INDIA PVT. LTD., 2 ND FLOOR, 3, TAIMOOR NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 065 (PAN/GIR NO. : AABCB7681G) VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) (RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. V.S.R. KRISHNA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. PRITHI LAL, SR. D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, NEW DELH I DATED 10.10.2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF ` 6,08,000/- U/ S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THIS CASE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING FROZEN FOOD ITEMS COVERED UNDER BAKERY AND CONFECTIONARY ITEMS. THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 3.10. 2008 DECLARING A LOSS OF ` 3,16,19,027/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 1 43(3) WAS COMPLETED IN THIS CASE ON 18.3.2010 AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED AT A LOSS OF ` 2,98,25,260/-, AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 2 I) DISALLOWANCE OF ROC FEE ` 2,41,000/- II) DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON SALE OF ASSETS ` 15,4 7,764/- III) DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION ` 5,000/- THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASE AND IMPOSED A PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AMOUNT ING TO ` 6,09,700/- FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREBY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF WRONG CLAIMS AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS AND DID NOT FILE FURTHER APPEAL. 4. UPON ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY ORD ER, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) SUSTAINED PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF ROC FEE AND DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSETS, BUT DELETED THE PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPE AL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDI TION WERE BASED ON CLEAR INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSE SSEE AND HENCE HE CLAIMED THAT PENALTY IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT LE VIABLE. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPA NY WAS IN DEEP LOSS AND THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION WAS AT LOSS OF ` 313,16,19,027/-. THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BENE FITED BY CLAIMING THE EXPENSES WHICH HE KNOWS THAT THE SAME WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. EVEN AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF THE AFORESAID ITEMS, ASSESSEE S LOSS CAME DOWN TO ` 29825260/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCO ME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS FILED AFTER DULY CO NSIDERING THE TAX AUDIT REPORT U/S. 44AB BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO IS ALSO A ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 3 STATUTORY AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY. THE DISALLOWANCE IN THE RETURN WERE MADE AS PER THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. NOTHING WA S POINTED OUT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT BY THE TAX AUDITORS. THE SAME CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON REALIZING THE MISTAKE ASSESSEE FOR THE NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD FILED REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY AND CORRECTED THE MISTAKE WHICH P ROVES THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED FO R EXEMPTION U/S. 80IC FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM A.Y. 2008-09 ONWA RDS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SET UP A MANUFACTURING FACILITY IN A NOTIFIED AREA NAMELY KASHIPUR IN UTTARANCHAL. HENCE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAD TAXABLE INCOME FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, TH E SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPT U/S. 80IC. THEREFORE, IT IS OBV IOUS THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY REASON ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSE E TO DELIBERATELY CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LOSS OF SALE OF FIXED ASSETS OF ` 1547764/- HAS BEEN CLEARLY RE FLECTED ON THE FACE OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THERE IS NO CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS. THE LOSS WAS ADDED BACK WHILE COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREBY INDICATING THAT IT WAS MORE OF AN INADVERTE NT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 7. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF ROC FEE ALSO, LD. COUN SEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE TREATMENT FOR THE ROC FE E PAID AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WAS DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE. HENCE IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID PLEADINGS, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD BE DELETED. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE UPO N THE DECISION OF ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 4 THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T. AND ANR. 348 ITR 306 (SC) AND THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF C .I.T. VS. SOCIETEX IN I.T.A. NO. 1190/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.7.2012. 8. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER PL ACED RELIANCE UPON THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN T HE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 AS WE LL AS DECISION OF C.I.T. VS. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD. (2010) 328 ITR 44 . 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) POSTULA TES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AN D CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED FOR DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ROC FEE AND DISALLOWANC E OF LOSS OF SALE OF ASSETS. ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD IS T HAT THE SAME HAPPENED BECAUSE OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS NO INTENTION OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT STAND TO GAIN ANYTHING BY NOT DISCLOSING THE AFORESAID ITEMS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVIN G DEEP LOSS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE RETURN FILED W AS AT A LOSS OF ` 31619027/-. AFTER THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE THE LO SS WAS REDUCED TO ` 29825260/-. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BENEFITED BY CLAIMING THESE EXPENSES. MOREOVER, ANOTHER COGE NT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE A DVISE OF THE EXPERT TAX AUDITOR AND THESE ITEMS WERE NOT REPORTED BY THE TAX AUDITORS IN THE TAX AUDITOR REPORT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 80IC FOR THE PERIOD OF 10 YEARS FROM A .Y. 2008-09. ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 5 HENCE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS TAXABLE INCOME THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN EXEMPTED U/S. 80IC. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T THERE WAS NO CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE , RATHER THE DISALLOWANCES WERE RESULT OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE. L D. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT REVISE THE RETURN OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE TIME FOR REV ISION OF INCOME HAS PASSED, BUT CONSIDERING THE SAME FOR THE NEXT ASSES SMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS REVISED THE RETURN. IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE VIS ITED WITH PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). 9.1 IN COMING TO THE AFORESAID DECISIONS, WE DRAW SU PPORT FROM THE HONBLE APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF PRICE W ATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. C.I.T. AND ANR. 348 ITR 306 (SC). IN THIS CASE IT WAS HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WER E PECULIAR AND SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A REPUTED FIRM AND HAD GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT, IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE SILLY MISTAKE. THE FACT TH AT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT I T UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PROVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UND ER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A COMPUTA TION ERROR IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REP ORT SUGGESTED THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING IT S INCOME OR OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. APART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT NOTICE THE ERROR, IT WAS NOT EVEN NOTICED EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALL THAT HAD HAPPENED WAS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADV ERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING ITS RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 6 GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D HAVE BEEN CAREFUL BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DID NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 9.2 WE FURTHER DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. SOCIETEX I N I.T.A. NO. 1190/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 19.7.2012. IN THE SAID DECISIO N THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT VIDE PARA NO. 5 & 6 HELD AS UNDER:- 5. MR. MARATHA RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 AS WELL AS DECISION OF CIT VS. ESCORTS FINANCE LTD. (2010) 328 ITR 44. IT WAS URGED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEES BEH AVIOUR WAS NOT ONE OF FURNISHING A CLAIM THAT WAS INCORRECT IN LAW BUT SHOWED A CONSCIOUS KNOWLEDGE OF THE CLAIM WHICH COUL D NOT BE GRANTED. IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE CLAIMED PROVI SION FOR TAX AS THAT IS NOT DEDUCTABLE UNDER ANY PROVIS ION OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY ORDER MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS WARRANTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. LD. COUNSEL ALS O RELIED UPON THE DECISION REPORTED AS CIT VS. ESCORTS FINANC E LTD. (SUPRA). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED TH AT IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS PARTIALLY ACCEPTE D THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DEPRECIATI ON WAS GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE BANGALORE PROPERTY. LD. COUNSEL STRESSED UPON THE FACT THAT THE KHAN MARKET PROPERTY HAD ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 7 BEEN LET OUT ONLY FROM AUGUST, 1996 AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN A MECHANICAL REPETITION OF THE CLAIM IN THE RETURN FILED. SO F AR AS THE QUESTION OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION OF TAXATION IS CONCERNED, LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS INADVERTENT AND EVEN THE RECORD SHOWED THAT SUCH A CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR. 6. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) IS PREMISED O N THE FOOTING THAT EVEN IF INADVERTENT BY PARTICULA RS ARE NOT GIVEN, IF THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT THE EXPLANATIO N GIVEN IS NOT BONA FIDE PENALTY U/S. 271 WOULD BE WARRANTED. SIMILAR OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE IN CIT V. RELIANCE PETR O PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., (2010) 322 ITR 158. IN THE PRESE NT CASE, SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED WHAT EMERGES FROM THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF 2/3RD IN RESPECT OF THE BANGALORE PROPERTY. IT IS ALSO THE MATTER OF RECO RD THAT THE KHAN MARKET PROPERTY WAS LET OUT FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE LATTER PART OF THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. I N AUGUST, 1996. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BENEFIT OF INAD VERTENCE OR MECHANICAL OR REPETITIVE CLAIM BEING MADE CAN B E GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, AS FAR AS THE PROVISION FOR TAXATION IS CONCERNED, WE NOTICE THAT THE TRIBUNAL BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD STATED IN THE EXTRACT REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF THE PROVISION FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL; IN ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 8 OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO HISTORY OF FURNISHING SU CH ACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIO US YEARS. HAVING REGARD TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE FACT T HAT THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THIS COURT IS OF THE OPINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS CASE. 10. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID CASE LAWS, WE FIN D THAT IF DUE TO AN ADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE & WHER E ASSESSEES CONDUCT IS NOT CONTUMACIOUS, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE. THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT CITED ABOVE. 11. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE FROM THE APEX COURT DECISION RENDERED BY A LARGER BENCH COMPRISING OF THREE OF THEIR LORD SHIPS IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL VS. STATE OF ORISSA IN 83 ITR 26 W HEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT A STATUTORY OBLIGATION IS THE RESULT OF A QUASI-CRIMINAL PROCEED INGS, AND PENALTY WILL NOT ORDINARILY BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE PARTY OBLIGED E ITHER ACTED DELIBERATELY IN DEFIANCE OF LAW OR WAS GUILTY OF CO NDUCT CONTUMACIOUS OR DISHONEST, OR ACTED IN CONSCIOUS DISREGARD OF IT S OBLIGATION. PENALTY WILL NOT ALSO BE IMPOSED MERELY BECAUSE IT IS LAWFUL TO DO SO. WHETHER ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 9 PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO PERFORM A ST ATUTORY OBLIGATION IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION OF THE AUTHORITY TO BE EX ERCISED JUDICIALLY AND ON A CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES . EVEN IF A MINIMUM PENALTY IS PRESCRIBED, THE AUTHORITY COMPETENT TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY WILL BE JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO IMPOSE PENAL TY, WHEN THERE IS A TECHNICAL OR VENIAL BREACH OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, OR WHERE THE BREACH FLOWS FROM A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE OFFEND ER IS NOT LIABLE TO ACT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 12. WE FURTHER PLACE RELIANCE UPON THE HONBLE APE X COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2463 OF 2010. IN THIS CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 17.3.2 010 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE LAW LAID DOWN IN THE DILIP SHEROFF CASE 291 ITR 519 (SC) AS TO THE MEANING OF WORD CONCEALMENT AND INACCURATE C ONTINUES TO BE A GOOD LAW BECAUSE WHAT WAS OVERRULED IN THE DHARMENDE R TEXTILE CASE WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP SHEROFF CASE WHERE IT WA S HELD THAT MENSREA WAS A ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ). THE HONBLE APEX COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CL AIM IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSE SSEE WILL INVITE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE INT ENDMENT OF LEGISLATURE. ITA NO. 5112/DEL/2012 10 13. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND PRECEDENTS, WE FIND THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN THIS CASE IS NO T JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/12/2012. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI U.B.S. BEDI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 14/12/2012 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES