M/s. Jaydeep Jewellers, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 521/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9431 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 68; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD . . , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 ) M/S. JAYDEEP JEWELLERS, MAIN BAZAR, BAREJA, TA. DASCROI, DIST, AHMEDABAD. / VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AABFJ 3020 G ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DHARMVIR D. YADAV, SR.D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 11/01/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/01/2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 20/12/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002- 03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. IN THESE APPEALS COMMON GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE: (1) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND HON. CIT(A) HAVE ERRED IN LEVYING AND CONFIRMING PENALTY OF RS.1,64,260/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C), WHEN: ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 2 - (A) THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) TO EXPLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH VIZ, WHEN PROPER EXPLANATIONS WERE SUBMITTED, THE SAME WERE NOT FOUND FALSE, THE SAME WERE SUBSTANTIATED, THE SAME WERE BONAFIDE AND WHEN ALL THE MATERIALS AND FACTS RELATING TO COMPUTING OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. (B) ADDITIONS ARE MADE U/S68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961, I.E. DEEMED INCOME, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. (C) THE ASSESSEES CASE IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISPUTED, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. (D) HON.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY NOT CONSIDERING IN THE REAL PERSPECTIVE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. (E) MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH MAY NOT BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, DOES NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING INCOME AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05. 3. TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER: SR.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR(AY) ASSESSED INCOME 1. A.Y. 2000-01 RS.20,88,170/- 2. A.Y. 2001-02 RS.4,54,630/- 3. A.Y. 2002-03 RS.30,20,130/- 4. A.Y. 2003-04 RS.62,09,310/- 5. A.Y. 2004-05 RS.28,21,990/- ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 3 - 4. THEREAFTER INCOME-TAX/DEMANDED FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS UNDER: SR.NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR(AY) ASSESSED INCOME 1. A.Y. 2000-01 RS.1,64,260/- 2. A.Y. 2001-02 RS.99,820/- 3. A.Y. 2002-03 RS.5,28,100/- 4. A.Y. 2003-04 RS.7,30,300/- 5. A.Y. 2004-05 RS.2,17,000/- 3. IN THIS CASE, SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 14/03/2005 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT MAIN BAZAR, AHMEDABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, DISCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. SHRI ROHIT SONT, ONE OF THE PARTNERS RECORDED ON 14/03/2005 AND 04/04/2005 DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WHICH COMPRISED OF THE FOLLOWING: (I) RS.4,90,000/- DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF SILVER STOCK (II) RS.25,950/- DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD STOCK (III) RS.80,000/- DISCLOSED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AND (IV) RS.14,04,050/- DISCLOSED IN LIEU OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 4. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.147, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING SAME INCOME AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS BUT ENCLOSED WITH IT AN ALTOGETHER REVISED TRADING P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE-SHEET. THE ORDER U/S. 143(3) PASSED ON 18/12/2006 ON TOTAL ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 4 - ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.20,88,170/- WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.4,26,645/- FOR A.Y. 2000-2001, ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.4,54,630/- WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.2,54,639/- FOR A.Y. 2001-02, ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.30,20,130/- WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.14,79,258/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03, ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.62,09,310/- WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.19,87,086/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04 AND ON TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.28,21,990/- WHICH WAS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.56,560/- AND UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.5,48,271/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND ADVANCES TO THE TUNE OF RS.12,69,281/- WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.4,07,912/- THEREBY REDUCING THE LIABILITY BY AN AMOUNT OF RS.8,61,369/-. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF SALES WAS CONCERNED. THE VALUE OF GOLD PURCHASED IN TERMS OF QUANTITY WAS CHANGED WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF REDUCING ITS VALUE AND CONSEQUENTLY ITS VALUE IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31/03/2001 HAS ALSO BEEN REDUCED BY RS.8,61,369/- I.E. EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF REDUCING MADE IN THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. AFTER MAKING THESE ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 5 - CHANGES, THE CLOSING STOCK WAS WORKED OUT FOR A.Y. 2000-01 AND THE SAID CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS THE OPENING STOCK FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND BASED ON SUCH REVISED OPENING STOCK AND AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PURCHASES AND SALES, THE CLOSING STOCK FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS WORKED OUT AND THIS EXERCISE HAS BEEN CARRIED ON TILL THE A.Y.2005- 06. 6. THE REASON FOR FILING THE NONE OF THE PARTNERS HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTS AND THEY WERE DEPENDENT ON ONE OF THEIR RELATIVES VIZ. SHRI BHOGILAL S. RANPURA, WHO WAS MADE RESPONSIBLE FOR WRITING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BY THE PARTNER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION THAT THE ORIGINAL ACCOUNTS WERE ARTIFICIALLY INFLATED BY THEIR ACCOUNTANT TO SHOW NON-EXISTING LOANS AND ADVANCES ON THE LIABILITY SIDE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THE TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THEIR BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO BASIS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REVISE ITS ACCOUNTS TO SUIT THEIR CONVENIENCE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH NAMES & ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND SHOWN AS LOAN LIABILITY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO CONFIRMATION OR DETAILS WERE PRODUCED. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY FILING ITS RETURN OF INCOME FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND NO SUCH THINGS WERE EVER ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 6 - POINTED OUT EXCEPT ONLY WHEN SURVEY U/S. 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES ON 14/03/2005, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE FOUND ITSELF INCAPABLE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF A PART OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ON THE LIABILITY SIDE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,78,057/- OF THIS YEAR IN ABSENCE OF THE PROOFS REGARDING GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE DEPOSITORS. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED AN ADDITION OF RS.3,51,412/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,26,645/- AS BEING DEPOSITS WHICH WER NOT PROVED TO BE GENUINE. 8. SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE THE REPLY, WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BELOW: WITH RESPECT TO THE ABOVE, WE BEG TO SUBMIT AS UNDER: (I) FROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED PROPER EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDITS. (II) KINDLY REFER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH IT IS NOT HELD THAT THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED WERE FALSE (III) THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED WERE SUBSTANTIATED (IV) THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED WERE BONAFIDE, AND (V) ALL THE MATERIALS AND FACTS RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY US. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 5. YOUR HONOURS KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE NATURE OF ADDITION. THE SAME ARE BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT. WHEN ADDITIONS ARE MADE U/S. 68, THEY ARE ON PRESUMPTIVE BASIS, AND AS SUCH WHEN THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE U/S.68, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 6. YOUR HONOURS KIND ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DETAILS OF THE DEPOSITORS VIDE LETTERS DATED 25/09/2006, 10/11/2006 AND 08/12/2006. ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 7 - 7. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE FILED APPEAL (CROSS OBJECTIONS) BEFORE ITAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SO FAR AS IT IS AGAINST US. 8. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND THE LEGAL POSITION PREVAILING, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS. 9. BUT REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (I) IT WAS ONLY AFTER THE SURVEY ACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WITH REVISED TRADING, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WITH THE PLEA THAT THEY WERE NOT CONVERSANT WITH THE ACCOUNT AND THAT THEIR ACCOUNTANT HAD WRONGLY MANIPULATED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE SURVEY ACTION RESULTED IN THE ASSESSEE ADMITTING TO THE DEFECTS IN ITS ACCOUNTS. HAD NOT THE SURVEY BEEN CARRIED OUT THIS MATTER WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. THIS SHOWS THE MALAFIDE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO MISLEAD THE REVENUE. (II) EVEN DURING THE SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE DETAILS WITH CONFIRMATION AND PAN OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM IT HAD TAKEN LOANS AND ADVANCES WHICH IT FAILED TO DO SO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) GIVEN RELIEF IN RESPECT OF SOME OF THE CONFIRMATIONS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FURTHER APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE TRIBUNAL. SO FINALLY PENALTY WAS LEVIED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RELEVANT RECORD, WE NOTICED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED HIS ORDER THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 8 - ARE NOT DENIED IN THIS CASE, SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 14/03/2005 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT MAIN BAZAR, AHMEDABAD. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, DISCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS WERE FOUND AND CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT AND ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NAMES & ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND SHOWN AS LOAN LIABILITY AND SOME CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT A.O. HAS WRONGLY TREATED THE RETURNS FILED UNDER SECTION 148 AS REVISED RETURNS AND APPELLANT HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN SOME PLACES A.O. HAS MENTIONED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IN OTHER PLACE HE HAS MENTIONED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. LD. AR HAS CITED JUDGMENT 241 ITR 125 THE INITIAL BURDEN LIES ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY IF HE FAILS TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, THE PROVISO TO EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 PROVIDES FOR SHIFTING OF THIS BURDEN AGAIN WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE. THE ASSESSEES RETURNS WERE FILED ORIGINALLY SHOWING A MEAGER INCOME. LATER ON, IN PURSUANCE OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, REVISED RETURNS WERE FILED SHOWING HIGHER INCOME TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID VEXATIOUS LITIGATION. THE REVISED ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 9 - RETURNS WERE ACCEPTED AND REGULARIZED BY THE REVENUE. ON INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT PENALTY COULD NOT BE LEVIED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. ON A REFERENCE: HELD, THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE REVENUE AND ONCE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD FAILED TO TAKE ANY OBJECTION IN THE MATTER, THE DECLARATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURNS AND THE EXPLANATION THAT HE HAD DONE SO TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND TO COME OUT OF VEXED LITIGATION COULD BE TREATED AS BONA FIDE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, NO PENALTY COULD BE LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT. 11. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED CASE OF CIT(A) VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THIS CASE A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 10 - OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 12. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE PARTICULARS, FURNISHED NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM LOANS HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND SHOWN AS LOAN LIABILITY. 13. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THESE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WE DELETE THE PENALTY IN ALL FIVE OF THE APPEALS. ITA NO. 521, 522, 523, 524 & 525/AHD/2011 M/S JAYDEEP JEWELLERS VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 - 11 - 14. IN THE RESULT ALL FIVE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13/01/2017 SD/- SD/- . . ( ) ( ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/01/2017 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI-AHMEDABAD. 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12/01/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 7 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13/01/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P.S./P.S 13/01/2017 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P.S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER