Bella Premier Happy Hygiene Care Private Limited, Dindigul V. ACIT, Madurai

ITA 525/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 52521714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMOD NANGIA IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: N DEVANATHAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Wrong claim; Reason to believe

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! , ' $ % BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ITA NO.525/MDS//2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 BELLA PREMIER HAPPY HYGIENE CARE PRIVATE LIMITED, VS. THE ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER AMBATHURAI, GANDHIGRAM, OF INCOME-TAX, DINDUGAL DT. 624 309. CIRCLE-III, PAN AABCB9589P MADURAI 625 002. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) /APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. DEVANATHAN, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAMOD NANGIA, IRS, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH MAY, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD MAY, 2014 $& / O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I AT MAD URAI, DATED - 2 - ITA 525/14 14.2.2014 . THE APPEAL ARISES OUT OF THE PENALTY O RDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURE/TRADER OF HYGIENE CARE PRODUCTS LIKE DIAPERS, SANITARY NAPKINS ETC. THE A SSESSEE COMPANY FILED ITS RETURN DECLARING A LOSS OF ` 6,76,37,054/-. 3. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED ` 4,41,79,165/- TOWARDS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY CALLED FOR DETAILS AND THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE W ITHDREW ITS ADJUSTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,93,13,616/- TOWARDS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION AND SOUGHT TO REVISE THE LOSS FROM ` 6,76,37,054/- TO ` 5,12,20,481/-. THIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A LOSS OF ` 5,12,20,481/-. THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT RESTED THERE WITHOUT ANY FURTHER APPEAL. 4. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALT Y UNDER SEC.271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS F URNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,93,13,616/- PERTAINING TO LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THIS - 3 - ITA 525/14 EXCESS CLAIM WAS FOUND OUT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IF NO S UCH SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS MADE, THE EXCESS CLAIM WOULD NOT HAV E COME TO LIGHT AND TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE OVERSTA TED THE LOSS, RESULTING IN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUPPORTED HIS FINDING ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED DETAILED EXPLANATIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS BASED ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTE D THAT A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY AN ASSESSEE CANNOT IPSO FACTO JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(1)(C). THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIA NCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. CHALLAPALLI SUGARS LTD. VS. CIT, 98 ITR 167(SC) 2. CIT VS. GEORGE OAKES LTD., 303 ITR 357 (MADRAS) 3. CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 230 ITR 320(SC) 5. THE FIRST TWO DECISIONS ABOVE WERE RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS BOUND TO STATE ITS FINAL ACCOUNTS, FOLLOWING THE ACCOUNTI NG STANDARDS AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENC Y FLUCTUATION HAS - 4 - ITA 525/14 BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE APPLI CABLE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. THE THIRD JUDGMENT ABOVE HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS ARGUMENT THAT NOT ACCEPTING A DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY AN ASSESSEE CANNOT MAKE WAY FO R A PENALTY, AS SUCH. 6. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) EXAMINED THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS ON FIX ED ASSETS AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC.43A, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME- TAX(APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, HAS TRIED TO CLAIM THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS BY WAY OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.37, UNDER THE GUISE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS. HE ACCORD INGLY, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED ON THE D ECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF SUTLEJ COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT, 116 ITR 1 AND CIT V. BHARAT HEAVY ELECTRICALS LTD., 239 ITR 756, TO HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONAL LIABILITY INCURRED BY AN ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF VARIATION IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE WAS A N ALLOWABLE TRADING LIABILITY, WHERE THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IS UT ILIZED ON REVENUE - 5 - ITA 525/14 ACCOUNT AND NOT ALLOWABLE IN CASE FOREIGN EXCHANGE IS UTILIZED ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HE HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS AGAINST THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS) ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY HELD THAT THE FACTS OF THOSE D ECISIONS ARE DIFFERENT AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FINALLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2 71(1)(C) PARTICULARLY, RELYING ON THE EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.2 71(1)(C). 8. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND THEREFORE, THE SE COND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 9. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESE NT APPEAL READ AS BELOW : 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE IMPO SITION OF PENALTY IN A ROUTINE MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, TO WIT: (A) FUNDAMENTALLY THE PROVISION IS PURELY DISCRETIO NARY AND THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO ADOPT BLOOD CURDLY A PPROACH TO THE ISSUE SINCE THE CLAIM IS BONAFIDE AND SPECIA L - 6 - ITA 525/14 PROVISION IN TERMS OF SECTION 43A HAS NO APPLICATIO N TO THE FACTS. (B) THERE EXISTS NEITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN THE LIGHT O F THE FACT THAT (A) THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE IN THE LONG RU N AND (B) THE CLAIM OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOSS IS A UNALLOYED R EVENUE EXPENDITURE CHARGEABLE TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT A S JUSTIFIED BY ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 11 AND RECOGNISED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, TO WIT CIT V GEORGE OAKS 303 I TR 357 & CHALLAPALLI SUGARS REPORTED IN 98 ITR 167. (C) RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P) LTD. V. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN 358 ITR 593 HAS ONLY APPLICA TION WHEN NO AUTOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY ON VOLUNTAR Y SURRENDER OF INCOME SURRENDERED JUSTIFIES NON IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY AND WOULD ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION SINCE THE PENA LTY AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE, INDEPENDENT AN D DISTINCT (SEE ANANTARAM VERASINGHIAH VS. CIT REPORT ED AT 123 ITR 457 & GEM GRANITES) - 7 - ITA 525/14 (D) THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE DE CISION OF THE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 322 ITR 158 SC IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS WHEREIN THE SUPREME COURT TELLINGLY POINTED OUT THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. (E) THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE DECISIONS CITED NAMELY IN THE CASE OF (A) SARAVANA BHAVAN (B) SSP LTD. 189 TAXMAN 282, (C) PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS LTD 348 ITR 306, GEM GRANITES (MAD) IN JUSTIFICATION FO R CANCELLATION OF PENALTY. 10. IT IS TRUE, AS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO REVALUE ITS FOREIGN EXCHANGE LIABIL ITY AS PROVIDED IN THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS MADE MANDATORY TO LIMITED COMPANIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVALUED SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE LIABILITY AND WORKED OUT A LOSS OF ` 4,41,769,165/- TOWARDS LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. THIS LOSS WAS CLA IMED BY THE - 8 - ITA 525/14 ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT AS A DEDUCTION. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE COMPUTATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETU RNED A LOSS OF ` 6,76,37,054/-. 11. BUT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I T WAS FOUND THAT THE FOREIGN CURRENCY FLUCTUATION LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,93,13,616/- RELATED TO ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSE TS AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS A LOSS AS SUCH BUT HAS TO BE D EALT UNDER SEC.43A, THEREBY ADJUSTING THE VALUE OF FIXED ASSET S ACQUIRED BY UTILIZING THE FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOAN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE READILY ARGUED TO THIS LEGAL POSITION EMER GED OUT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WITHDREW THE L OSS OF ` 1,93,13,616/-. INSTEAD ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ON THE ENHANCED COST OF FIXED ASSETS A S PROVIDED UNDER SEC.43A. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THUS COMPLETED. 12. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENA LTY ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURN ISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE P ROPOSITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS S UFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND THE COMMISSIONER - 9 - ITA 525/14 OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED THE DETAILS OF LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF CURRENCY FLUCTUATION IN ITS STATEMEN T OF ACCOUNT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED IN THE SCHEDULES AND NOTES ACCOMPANYING THE PROFIT AND LOS S ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT FOREIGN EXCHANGE FLUCTUATION LOSS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND ADJUSTED IN PURSUANCE OF ACCOUNTING STANDARDS 11 ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. THEREFORE, IT IS A CLEAR FACT THAT THERE IS NO CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, AS SUCH, AS F AR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED. 13. THE ONLY ISSUE, THEREFORE TO BE CONSIDERED IS, WHETHER THE WRONG CLAIM OF LOSS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,93,13,616/- AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR NOT. WE FIND THAT THIS CA NNOT BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BUT ONLY A CASE OF MAKING A W RONG CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. THERE IS A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN ITS COMPUTATION AND THAT MISTAKE HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT A T THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE I N THE STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IDENTI FIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM ANY SOURCE OUTSIDE THE STATE MENTS OF ACCOUNT - 10 - ITA 525/14 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT, AT THE MAXIMUM, IT WA S ONLY A CASE OF WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CAS E OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE PARTICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCURATE; BUT WHILE MAKING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION, THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF TAKING SHELTER U NDER SEC.43A, PROCEEDED UNDER SEC.37; THAT TOO IN RESPECT OF ONLY A PORTION OF THE LOSS. THERE IS NO RULE THAT A MISTAKE SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. IF NO MISTAKE SHOULD EVER HAPPEN, THERE IS EVEN NO NEED O F SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IS PROVIDED UN DER SEC.143(3) TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INCOME OR LOSS RETUR NED BY THE ASSESSEE. SEC.143(3) ITSELF CONTEMPLATES THAT THER E COULD BE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF INCOME OR LOSS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS CARRIED OUT IN THE C OURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. WHEN THE INADMISSIBLE PORTION OF THE L OSS WAS PICKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, HE WAS ONLY DISCHARGING THE LEGITIMATE DUTY CAST ON HIM UNDER SEC.143(3). IT IS NOT A CASE OF DETECTING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE CONSEQUENTIAL DISALLOWA NCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. - 11 - ITA 525/14 14. COMING TO THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME- TAX(APPEALS), HE HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN A VERY DETAILED MANNER. THE ONLY THING IS THAT HE WENT ON AN ENTIRELY DIFFE RENT TANGENT. HE EXAMINED THE ISSUE, AS IF HE WAS ADJUDICATING A QUA NTUM APPEAL. HE HAS MERELY DISCUSSED THAT THE LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS MUST BE ADJUSTED UNDER SEC.43A AND NOT UNDER SEC.37. HE HAS DELIBERATED UPON THE ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT OF INDIA. BUT IT IS TO BE SEE N THAT ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS ARE RELEVANT IN A QUANTUM ASSESSMENT AP PEAL. 15. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E- TAX(APPEALS) WAS NOT CONCERNED ABOUT ANY QUANTUM AD JUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX(APPEALS) WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.2 71(1)(C). FINALLY, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY RELYING ON EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.271(1)(C). EVEN UN DER THAT EXPLANATION, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED CONVINCING EXPLANATIONS FOR THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY IT. THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE. THERE W AS NO FALSITY IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT T HE EXPLANATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BONA FIDE. THEREF ORE, THE - 12 - ITA 525/14 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS GONE WRONG IN GIVING A PARTICULAR THRUST ON EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.271(1)(C) . THIS IS NOT A CASE COVERED BY THE SAID EXPLANATION. 16. NOW COMING TO THE JUSTIFICATION OF PENALTY, IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V . RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 230 ITR 320. IN THE SAID CASE, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF A CLAIM OR A WRONG CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, IPSO FACTO, DO NOT AMOU NT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR THEREBY CONCEALMENT OF IN COME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A LIABILITY OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOAN. IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS TO EVALUATE THE CURRENT POSITION OF SUCH FOREIGN EXCHANGE LOAN AS O N THE LAST DAY OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IF A LIABILITY IS CAST ON THE ASSES SEE ON ACCOUNT OF FLUCTUATION IN FOREIGN EXCHANGE RATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVIDE FOR THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THIS IS A MANDAT ORY PROVISION FOR COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED FOR SUCH LIAB ILITY ARISING OUT OF THE CURRENCY FLUCTUATION. IN RESPECT OF SUCH LIABI LITY ARISING OUT OF THE CURRENCY FLUCTUATION, TREATMENT HAS TO BE GIVEN IN TWO WAYS; FIRST, IN RESPECT OF REVENUE ITEMS AND SECOND, IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL ITEMS. IN - 13 - ITA 525/14 THE PRESENT CASE, LOSS OF ` 1,93,13,616/- RELATED TO CAPITAL ITEMS AND THEREFORE, THE SAID LOSS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE COST OF ASSETS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE UTILIZING THE FOREIGN EXCH ANGE LOAN AS PROVIDED UNDER SEC.43A. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ITS RETURN, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS AMOUNT ALSO AS LOSS INSTEAD OF CLAIMIN G HIGHER AMOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THIS IS A CASE OF A MIS TAKE OR AN OVERSIGHT OR AT THE BEST, A CASE OF WRONG CLAIM. THERE IS NO SC OPE TO INVOKE SEC.271(1)(C) IN THE PRESENT CASE. 17. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND C ANCEL THE PENALTY. 18. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 23 RD OF MAY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- !'#$% ( &' . . . %# !()*+,#-.+,/01%## # # # ####!234#54647 ARAYANAN) 8 #9$ /JUDICIAL MEMBER :;< /VICE-PRESIDENT =8 /CHENNAI, >9 /DATED, THE 23 RD MAY, 2014. MPO* - 14 - ITA 525/14 9?## @'#A' /COPY TO: # 1. /APPELLANT ## 2. /RESPONDENT 3. # B#!% /CIT(A) 4. # B /CIT 5. 'CD# E /DR 6. D&#F /GF.