Late Shri Mukhtiar Singh through Legal Heir and Son Shri Gurdayal Singh, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5269/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2652 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-07-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS A S AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH K GUPTA
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.5269/DEL/ 2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 ) & ITA NO.2513/DEL/ 2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96) LATE SHRI MUKHTIAR SINGH THROUGH LEGAL VS. ACIT HEIR AND SON SHRI GURDAYAL SINGH. CIRCLE-21(1) 23/A-7, SECTOR-16, ROHINI. NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN: AIWPM7485P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MRS. A. S. AWASTHI, SR.DR. ASSESSEE BY:SHRI SURESH K. GUPTA, CA. ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR, AM THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, NEW DELH I DATED 30.09.2011 AND 06.03.2012 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 2. THE ITA NO. 5269 RELATES TO QUANTUM ADDITIONS, W HEREAS ITA NO. ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 2 2513 RELATES TO APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY ORDERS U/S 2 71 (1) (C). THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF BOTH ITAS ARE AS UN DER: GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 5269 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.7,65,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CONSIDERING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH U/S 69A OF INCOME TAX ACT. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 5269 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAZ SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.6,89,620/- U/S 271( 1) (C) IGNORING THE FACTS THAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING T HE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY GOT THE RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF 9,59,05 1/- AGAINST THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.17,24,051/- AND ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SUSTAINED ON OF RS.7,65,000/- ALSO DOES NO T INVOLVE ANY FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F URNISHING INACCURATE INCOME AND THEREFORE IT WAS PRAYED BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A) THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE BY OPENING UP IT S CASE U/S 148. CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH B Y CBI ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL FOREIGN TRADE. THE CBI HAD FOUND CERTAIN AM OUNTS OF CASH BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS KEPT BY THE AS SESSEE WITH SOME OTHER ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 3 PERSONS FOR SAFE CUSTODY. IN ALL A SUM OF RS.15,65, 000/- WAS RECOVERED BY CBI FROM TWO PERSONS THE DETAIL OF WHICH IS AS UNDE R: (A) RS.8,00,000/- FROM SHRI NARENDRA GOEL. (B) RS.40,000/- FROM ANCESTRAL HOUSE OF ASSESSEE. (C) RS.2,25,000/- FROM SHRI NARENDRA GOEL. (D) RS.5,00,000/- FROM SHRI RAVINDER MALIK. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS OF THES E AMOUNTS ALONG WITH CERTAIN OTHER ADDITIONS RELATING TO INTEREST I NCOME AND IN ALL AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,01,626/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESS EE VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.03.2002. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF RS.8,00,000/-, ON THE BASIS OF THAT S UCH INCOME BELONGED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95. HOWEVER, HE UPHELD THE ADD ITIONS OF RS.2,25,000/-, RS.50,000/- AND RS.40,000/- BY HOLDI NG AS UNDER: 11.4.3 RS.2.25 LACS RECOVERED FROM SH. NARENDER GO EL. THE NEXT ADDITION RELATES TO THE SUM OF RS.2.25 LAKHS A S RECOVERED FROM SH. NARENDER GOELS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 6.7.95 U/S 161 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE COURT BY THE CBI. IN THE STATEMENT DATED 6.7.95, HE STATED THAT IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1994 SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH CAME TO HIS (SH.GOELS) RES IDENCE THREE TIMES- FIRST TIME SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH GAVE RS. 8 LAKHS, SECOND TIME HE GAVE RS.2 LAKHS AND THIRD TIME HE GA VE RS.25,000/- FOR SAFE KEEPING. IN THE SUBSEQUENT STA TEMENT DT.30.08.1995 BEFORE THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE SH . NARENDER GOEL FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 199 4 HE WAS GIVEN CASH OF RS.8 LAKHS AND AFTER A FEW DAYS HE WA S GIVEN RS.2 LAKHS IN CASH AND THEN AFTER SOME DAYS AGAIN HE WAS GIVEN RS.25,000/-. IF THE TWO STATEMENTS DATED 6.7.1995 A ND 30.08.1995 ARE READ TOGETHER, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN ITIAL SUM OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS PAID AT THE END OF MARCH, 1994 AND T HE ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 4 SUBSEQUENT SUMS OF RS.2 LAKHS GIVEN AFTER A FEW DAY S, WHICH BY INFERENCE WOULD MEAN IN THE FIRST WEEK OF APRIL,200 4 AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/- GIVEN DEFINITELY WI THIN APRIL,2004. THUS, SO FAR AS THE SUM OF RS.2,25,000/ - IS CONCERNED, IT IS HELD THAT IT PERTAINS TO THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A. Y. 1995-96. AS THE SOURCE OF THE SUM RS.2,25 ,000/- REMAINS UNDISCLOSED, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY TREATED THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS.2,25,000/- A S APPELLANTS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE FOR THE A. Y. 1995-9 6. THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. THE YEAR APRIL, 2004 AS MENTIONED ABOVE BY LD. CIT (A) SEEMS TO BE A MISTAKE AND IT SHOULD BE APRIL, 1994. 11.4.4. RS.5 LAKHS RECOVERED FROM SH. RAVINDER MALI K. ANOTHER SUM OF RS.5LAKHS WAS RECOVERED ON 03.10.1994 FROM S H. RAVINDER MALIK. SH. RAVINDER MALIK IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE CBI ON 29.09.1994 HAS STATED THAT THE MONEY WAS HAN DED OVER TO HIM FOR SAFE KEEPING BY THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, S H. MUKHTIAR SINGH. AS PER HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.09.1994 SH. RAVINDER MALIK HAS STATED THAT SH. MUKHTIAR SINGH I N THE YEAR 1993, ABOUT 6-8 MONTHS PRIOR (TO THE RECORDING OF S TATEMENT) GAVE A LOAN OF A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS TO 3 PERSONS THR OUGH SH. RAVINDER MALIK. FROM THIS STATEMENT THE PERIOD OF R ECEIPT OF MONEY BY SH. RAVINDER MALIK IS TO BE INFERRED AS JA NUARY- MARCH,1994. SUBSEQUENTLY ON 11.07.1995 IN HIS STATE MENT RECORDED BEFORE THE CBI, SH. MALIK STATED THAT ABOU T TWO YEARS BACK (WHICH WOULD MEAN JULY, 1993), SH. MUKHTIAR SI NGH HANDED OVER A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS TO HIM FOR GIVING L OAN ON INTEREST TO SOME PERSONS DURING THAT PERIOD. 11.4.5 IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A WIDE GAP/ A GR OSS MISMATCH BETWEEN THE ALLEGED STATED PERIODS OF RECEIPT OF MO NEY IN BOTH THE STATEMENTS. UNLIKE THE STATEMENTS OF THE NAREND ER GOEL, THE STATEMENTS OF SH. RAVINDER MALIK LACK CONSISTENCY. EVEN GOING BY THE COMMONALITY OF USAGE THERE IS A WIDE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN JANUARY-MARCH 1994 AND JULY 1993. MOREOVER, EVEN T HE CBI HAS NOT READ MUCH INTO THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMEN T OR ELSE IT WOULD HAVE GIVEN SOME BENEFIT OF THE AVAILABILITY O F THE INTEREST ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 5 INCOME ON THE SUM OF RS.5 LACS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON LOAN TO 3 PERSONS. THEREFORE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE INC ONSISTENCY IN BOTH THE STATEMENTS OF SH. RAVINDER MALIK AND THE F AILURE OF APPELLANT TO HAVE DISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME ON THE SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS (THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE SUM WAS STAT ED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN) IT IS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS HAVING BEEN IN F. Y. 2003-04 AND THEREFORE THE MONE Y ORIGINATING IN F.YR 2003-04 IS NOT CONCLUSIVELY PRO VED. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN BRINGING THE AMOUNT TO TAX ON RECOVERY BASIS UNDER THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF 69A OF THE IT ACT. THUS T HE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE SUM OF RS.5 LACS AS INCOME OF A. Y. 1995-96 IS UPHELD. HERE ALSO THERE IS A MISTAKE IN THE MENTIONING OF Y EAR IN THE LD. CIT (A) ORDER, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN 1993-94 INSTE AD OF 2003-04. 12.7 WITH REGARD TO THE RECOVERY OF CASH OF RS.40,0 00/- FROM THE PARENTAL RESIDENCE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE IN SONIPAT DISTT, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE A MOUNT WAS PART OF THE SAVINGS FROM THE SALARY INCOME OF THE D ECEASED ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FAILED TO SHOW THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH THAT THIS RECOVERED AMOUNT, REPRESENTED SAVINGS FROM SALARY. IN THE ABSENCE OF THIS EVIDENCE, IT IS HELD THAT THE SOURC E OF RS.40,000/- REMAINS UN-PROVED. MOREOVER THE EXPLANA TION OF THE APPELLANT IS SHIFTING AS IN THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AMOUNT WAS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED A S PARENTAL INCOME GENERATED FROM CATTLE REARING. NO EVIDENCE O F THE LATE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAVING GENERATED AND KEPT IN LUMP SUM SUCH INCOME/ AMOUNTS WAS HOWEVER FILED. AS THE SOURCE OF THE NON SALARY INCOME OF RS.50,000 /- SHOWN IN THE RETURN IS UNKNOWN AND NO DETAILS OF THE MANNER AND PERIOD OF GENERATION OF THE INCOME ARE AVAILABLE, THE CASH FOUND AT THE PARENTAL RESIDENCE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE EXPLAINED O UT OF THE REMAINING INCOME OF RS.50,000/- SHOWN IN THE RETURN . THE SOURCE OF THE CASH FOUND THUS REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. THE ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 6 ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5. AGGRIEVED, WITH UPHOLDING OF ADDITIONS, THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. IN THE MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CONCLUDED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) (C) AND IMPOSED A PENALTY EQ UIVALENT TO 100% OF TAX EVADED AMOUNTING TO RS.6,89,620/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), THE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US, IN RESPECT OF BOTH ORDERS OF CIT (A) REGARDING QUANTUM AND PENALTY. 6. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR TOOK US TO RELEVANT DATES AND ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO STATEMENTS OF SHRI NARENDER GOEL AND S HRI RAVINDER MALIK PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 7 AND 8. HIGHLIGHTING FR OM THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI NARENDER GOEL PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 7.THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLLOWING LINES: IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1994 HE GAVE ME 8 LACS CASH SINCE HIS RESIDENCE IS LOCATED AT A LONELY PLACE. HE STATED T HAT HE WILL TAKE BACK THE SAME AFTER ABOUT 10-15 DAYS. AFTER FEW DAY S HE ALSO GAVE ME TWO LAKHS IN CASH AND AGAIN AN AMOUNT OF RS .25, 000/- FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PART OF STATEMENT, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT SINCE RS.8,00,000/- WAS GIVEN IN MARCH, 1994 WHEREIN SPEC IFIC DATE WAS NOT MENTIONED AND WITHIN 10-15 DAYS MEANS THAT AMOUNT W AS PAID IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1994 ITSELF AND, THEREFORE, THE AMO UNT OF RS.2,25,000/- ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 7 ALSO RELATED TO EARLIER YEAR AND LD. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THIS ADDITION ALSO. SIMILARLY OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAVINDER MALIK PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 8, WHICH W AS RECORDED ON 11.07.1995 AND WHICH CONTAINED THE FOLLOWING: ABOUT TWO YEARS BACK SHRI MUKHTIAR SINGH CAME TO M Y RESIDENCE AND HANDED OVER A SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- TO ME AND TOLD ME TO KEEP THE SAME WITH ME FOR SOME TIME. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT, THE LD. AR STA TED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED ON SOME DATE IN JULY, 1993 WHICH FELL INTO FINANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 AND, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DELETED THIS AMOUNT ALSO AS IT BELONGS TO THE EARLIER YEAR. OUR ATTENTI ON WAS ALSO INVITED TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 28 AND 29 WHEREIN A COPY OF STATEMENT RE CORDED OF THE SAME PERSON ON 29.09.194 WAS PLACED WHEREIN SHRI RAVINDE R MALIK HAS STATED SHRI MUKHTIAR SINGH HAD LENT MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,00,000/- TO THREE PERSONS OF PANIPAT DURING THE PERIOD OF 6-8 MONTHS IN YEAR 1993 AND IN VIEW OF THIS ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE TWO STATEMENTS AND LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THESE. HE FURTH ER TOOK US TO PAGE 17 WHEREIN THE EXPLANATION REGARDING RECOVERY OF RS.40 ,000/- FROM THE ANCESTRAL HOUSE OF ASSESSEE WAS PLACED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ADDITIONS UPHELD BY LD. CIT (A) NEE DED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 8 10. REGARDING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THE LD. AR ARG UED THAT DESPITE RELIEF GIVEN BY LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF QUANTUM P ROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS IGNORED TO GIVE THE RELIEF IN RESPECT OF PE NALTY IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. REGARDING ADDITIONS UPHELD BY LD . CIT (A) ALSO HE ARGUED THAT PENALTY IN ITS ENTIRETY NEEDED TO BE DE LETED AS NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FURNISHED. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHE R HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT AMOUNT OF RS.8,00,0 00/- RELATED TO EARLIER YEAR. THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/- WAS UPHELD ON T HE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN STATEMENTS OF SHRI RAVINDER MALIK RECORDED ON 11 .07.1995 AND 29.09.1994. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH BOTH STATEMENTS AN D WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.09.2004 PLACED AT PAPE R BOOK PAGE 28. SHRI RAVINDER MALIK HAD SUBMITTED THAT SHRI MUKHTIAR SIN GH HAD LENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- TO THREE PERSONS OF PANIPAT DURING THE PERIOD OF 6- 8 MONTHS IN THE YEAR 1993 AND IN THE STATEMENT RECO RDED ON 11.07.1995 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 8 THE SAME PERSON HAD SAI D THAT ABOUT TWO YEARS BACK SHRI MUKHTIAR SINGH CAME TO HIS RESIDENCE AND HANDED OVER ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 9 RS.5,00,000/- TO HIM. FROM BOTH THE STATEMENTS THE PERIOD OF TRANSACTIONS IS INTERPRETED TO BE IN BETWEEN JUNE, 1993 TO AUGUST, 1993. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD MENTIONED THIS PERIOD OF 6-8 MONTHS AS PERIOD P RIOR TO THE RECORDING OF STATEMENTS AND, THEREFORE INFERRED THAT THE PERIOD WAS JANUARY AND MARCH 1994. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INCONSISTENCY BETW EEN TWO STATEMENTS HE UPHELD THE ADDITION, WHEREAS IN OUR OPINION IN THE STATEMENT DATED 29.09.1994 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 28, 6-8 MONTHS IN YEAR 1993 MEANT PERIOD OF JUNE TO AUGUST IN THE YEAR 1993 AND THE S AME INFERENCES CAN BE DRAWN IN RESPECT OF STATEMENT RECORDED ON 11.07.199 5 PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 8, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT TWO YEAR S BACK THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, IN THE BOTH STATEMENTS THE PROBAB LE PERIOD IS BETWEEN JUNE, 1993 AND AUGUST, 1993, WHICH FALLS IN THE FIN ANCIAL YEAR 1993-94 AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ADDITIONS OF RS. 5,00,000/- NEEDS TO BE DELETED AND IS DELETED ACCORDINGLY. 13. AS REGARDS, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/-, WE D O NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO GIVE N IN THE MONTH OF MARCH,1994. THE STATEMENTS RECORDED, REVEAL THAT TH E AMOUNT OF RS.2,25,000/- WAS PAID AFTER 10-15 DAYS FROM THE DA TE OF GIVING OF ITA NO.5269/ DEL/ 2011 & ITA NO.2513 /DEL/2012 10 RS.8,00,000/- WHICH WAS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 1994 . THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.2,25,000/- IN THIS RESPEC T. 14. AS REGARDS RS.40,000/-, THE PLEA OF LD. AR THAT IT WAS A PART OF SALARY INCOME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS LD. CIT (A) HAS CLEARLY MADE A FINDING THAT IT WAS NOT A PART OF SALARY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ITA NO. 5269 IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. 15. AS REGARDS ITA NO. 2513, WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CI T (A) DID NOT REDUCE THE PENALTY AMOUNT AFTER THE PART SUCCESS OF ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECT ED TO REDUCE THE PENALTY AMOUNT BY APPROPRIATE AMOUNT, AFTER GIVING EFFECT T O LD. CIT (A)S ORDER IN RESPECT OF QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. HE IS FURTHER DIREC TED TO REDUCE THE PENALTY AMOUNT WITH THE EFFECT OF RELIEF GIVEN BY U S. ACCORDINGLY THE ITA NO. 2513 IS ALSO PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 5 TH /07/ 2013 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 5 TH DAY OF JULY, 2013 S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. CIT (ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.