The ITO, Ward-4(2), Surat V. M/s. Shilpa Filaments Pvt.Ltd., Surat

ITA 528/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9011 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2010
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Proportionate interest; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 80IB; 80HH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. N. PAHUJA, AM) ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 A. Y.: 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(2), ROOM NO.315, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS M/S. SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD., 4023, JASH MARKET, RING ROAD, SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJEEV KASHYAP, DR RESPONDENT BY NONE O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, SURAT DATED 27 -11-2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, CHALLENGING THE DELETION O F PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE FIN DINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT IS REJECTED. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON THE TOT AL INCOME OF RS.23,43,996/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REDUCED THE ASSE SSED INCOME TO RS.22,51,087/-. THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) WERE ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST WHICH WAS REDUCED FROM PROFITS FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. SIMILARLY, EXPEN SES OF RS.2,37,396/- WAS DISALLOWED FROM THE EXPENSES OF ONE UNIT AND TH E SAME WAS REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT OF THE SECOND UNIT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO UPHELD NON- INCLUSION OF INCOME FROM SCRAPS SALE FOR COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. SIMILARLY, INTEREST ON FDR AND INTER EST FROM DEBTORS WAS ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 2 ALSO HELD TO BE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALSO DEPRECIATION ON FIXED ASSETS WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB O F THE IT ACT. 4. DURING THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT IT HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HOWEVER, THE A O DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED WITH PENAL TY MATTER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT INCOME WAS NOT POSITIVE EVEN AFTER A DDITION. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. IT WAS SUB MITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT FOR DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDI TURE NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY WAS IMPOSE D IN RESPECT OF FOUR DISALLOWANCES. THE FIRST WAS INTEREST RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT WAS CLAIMED. THE HONBLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. 202 CTR 198 HAD HELD THAT INTEREST RECEIVED FROM TRADE DEBTORS WOULD BE ASSES SABLE AS PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT BE EXCL UDED FROM THE ELIGIBLE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING RELIEF U/S 80 I OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SCRAPS S ALE WAS ALSO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF MEERA INDUSTRIES DECIDED BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH REPORTED IN 87 ITD 475. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE CANCELED THE PENALTY. HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED A S UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS THE PENALTY IN T HIS CASE HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF FOUR DIFFERENT ASP ECTS. ONE IS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM DEBTORS AT RS.7,10,6 34/- AND SECOND ON SCRAP SALES AT RS.4,50,270/-. THESE TWO I SSUES ARE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT BY THE JURISDICT IONAL BENCH OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL AND THEREFORE, NO PENALTY U/S 2 71 (1) ( C ) IS IMPOSABLE ON THESE GROUNDS. I ALSO FIND THAT THE THIRD GROUND ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED IS ON ACCO UNT OF NOTIONAL RE-ALLOCATION OF EXPENDITURE BETWEEN TWO U NITS FOR WORKING OUT ALLOWANCE U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT. THIS RE- ALLOCATION IS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND HAS ARISEN BECA USE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ONLY AND CANNOT FORM A GROUND FOR PENALTY U/S 271 (1) (C ) OF THE IT ACT. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT THE ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 3 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM FDR WHICH WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTI ON U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE JURISDICTI ONAL BENCH OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MIRA INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) AND THEREFORE, THIS AMOUNT WAS INCORRECTLY CLAIMED BY T HE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT HAVE AN TICIPATED THAT THIS INCLUSION OF INTEREST ON FDR FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE IT ACT WOULD GO AGAINST H IM AND I AM THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELL ANTS, EXPLANATION WAS BONAFIDE AND EXPLANATION-I TO SECTI ON 271 (1) ( C ) IS NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. IN VIEW OF THI S IT IS HELD THAT NO PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS IMPOSABLE IN THIS CASE U/S 271 (1) ( C ) OF THE IT ACT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS HEREBY CANCELED. 6. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBM ISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN THE MATTER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THE MAJOR ISSUES ON WHICH PENA LTY IS IMPOSED HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBU NAL. THEREFORE, PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THE RE-ALLOCATION OF THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE I T ACT WAS HELD TO BE DEBATABLE AND THAT IN THE CASE OF MEERA INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF GRANT OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFO RE, CORRECTLY NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE ANTICIPATED THE INCLUSI ON OF INTEREST ON FDR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT AC T. THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE SHOWS THAT THE ADDITION O N THE ISSUES HAVE EITHER BEEN DELETED OR THAT THE ISSUES WERE DEBATAB LE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80 IB OF THE IT ACT ON THE BASIS OF DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVO LVES IS 2001-02, WHEN A PARTICULAR VIEW WAS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS A CASE OF BONA FIDE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCTION ON THE BASIS OF LAW PREVAILING AT THAT TI ME, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 4 FIT CASE OF CONCEALMENT OR INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RECENTLY, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE C ASE OF M/S. SHREE RAM INDUSTRIES VS ACIT IN ITA NO.2395/AHD/2009 AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 22-01-2010 DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DIS PUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDE RATION FILED RETURN(S) OF INCOME FOR ALL THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSM ENT YEARS, PRIOR TO THE DELIVERY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS(SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE MADE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEV ERAL DECISIONS DELIVERED BY DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL INCL UDING ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH. COPIES OF THE DECISIONS OF THE T RIBUNAL ARE FILED IN THE PAPER-BOOK FROM PAGES 8 TO 49. THESE DECIS IONS ARE DELIVERED PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RO GINI GARMENTS(SUPRA). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE) DATED 10/11/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN ITA NO.705/RJT/2005 IN W HICH THE SUBJECT MATTER WAS THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN WHICH THE LD.COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM U/S.80-IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE SAME PROPOSITION ON WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING OTHER DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDAB AD SET ASIDE THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND ALLOWED APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WOULD, THEREFORE, PROVE ON RECORD THA T PRIOR TO DELIVERY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENTS(SUP RA), THE DIFFERENT BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING AHMEDABAD BENCH W AS TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S.80- IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME. 8. HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HARSHVARDHAN CHEMICALS AND MINERAL LTD. (2003)259 I TR 212 (RAJ.) HELD AS UNDER: FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN ORIGINAL RETURN CLAIMING DEDUCTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 80HH AND 80-1 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC: 1961, AND DECLA RING A LOSS, AS WELL AS A REVISED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME AT NIL AS THERE WAS ADDITION IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN ON ACC OUNT OF WRONG CLAIM TO DEDUCTIONS. A PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). WHICH THE APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 5 DELETED HOLDING THAT : (I) WHERE AN ARGUABLE, CONTR OVERSIAL OR DEBATABLE DEDUCTION IS CLAIMED, THE CLAIM COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE FALSE, OTHERWISE IT WOULD BECOME IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANY ASSESSEE TO RAISE ANY CLAIMS OR DEDUCTIONS WHICH MI GHT BE DEBATABLE, AND IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGI SLATURE TO MAKE PUNISHABLE-SUCH CLAIMS, IF THEY WERE NOT ACCEP TED; (II) THE TOTAL INCOME ACCORDING TO THE ORIGINAL AND REVI SED COMPUTATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REMAINED THE SAME, VIZ ., RS. 13,07,646 AND THE INCOME AS COMPUTED ON FINAL ASSES SMENT WAS RS. 6,86,519; (III) NO FURTHER TAX WAS PAYABLE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,90,000 A REFUND BECAME PAYABLE TO IT AS A RESULT OF THE FINA L ASSESSMENT; (IV) AS AGAINST DEDUCTION OF RS. 6,73,2 98 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THE TOTAL DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MORE, VIZ., RS. 10,17,306; AND, THER EFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD BE SAID TO HAVE DISCHARGED ITS BURDE N UNDER THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(L)(C). ON A REFERENC E: HELD, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL, THAT NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON OF AN AMOUNT THAT WAS DEBATABLE IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ANY INCOME OR FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS FOR EVASION OF TAX, AND, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL, NO CASE WAS MADE OUT FOR INTERFERENCE . 8.1. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. NATH BROS. EXIM INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2007) 288 ITR 670(D ELHI) HELD AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DIVIDEND INCOME AS HIS BUSINESS INCOME AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IT WA S ENTITLED TO A DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (BAA) OF THE EXPLANATI ON TO SECTION 80HHC(4C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AND IMPOSED PENALTY. T HE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS, AND THEREFORE, EVEN THOUGH IT HAD MADE AN ERRONEOUS CLAIM WHICH COULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED IN LAW, THAT BY ITSELF DID NOT ATTRACT THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF T HE ACT. ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT : HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THERE WAS FULL DISCLOSURE OF ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL. IT COULD NOT B E SAID THAT THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(L)(C). THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFI ED. ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 6 8.2. HON'BLE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH B IN THE CASE OF SOUTHERN GAS FITTINGS (P.) LTD. VS. DY. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 20 2 (CHENNAI) IN PARAGRAPH NO.20 HELD AS UNDER:- 20. AT THE COST OF REPETITION, WE MAY MENTION HER E THAT FORM ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I T SEEMS THAT IT IS A CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, AS THE CLAIM FOR DEPRECIATION ETC., WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TRIAL PRODUCTION WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY RECORD, BUT THE STAND OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT SINCE NO COMMERCIAL PROD UCTION WAS THERE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR SUCH CL AIM. ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH, IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A CASE OF FILING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OR MAKING ANY CONCEALMENT BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD CLAIM THIS DE PRECIATION ETC., ON MERITS AND REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, STILL LAW IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IS REJECTED, NO CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WOULD BE MADE OUT . 9. HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREMDAS 248 ITR 237(P&H) DISMISSED THE DEPA RTMENTAL APPEAL IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL CANCELLED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETURNED INCOME AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DUE TO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT ESTIM ATED RATES OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA KAMAL RICE MILLS VS. CIT 265 ITR 25 ( CAL.) HELD THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND WHEN NO CLEAR AND D EFINITE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN IN A PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, PE NALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. 10. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MU NIM REPORTED IN 313/(STATUTE) 30 (SC) CONFIRMED THE VIE W OF THE HIGH COURT IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEE DOES NOT INCLUDE PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE TURNOVER UNDER BONA FIDE BEL IEF THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE TO DO SO, IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO TREAT THE RETURN AS A FALSE RETURN INVITING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 11. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S.RAJASTHAN SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS 2009-TI OL-63 HELD THAT ON EVERY DEMAND PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THE EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 PROVIDES FOR DEEMED CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFE R AN EXPLANATION OR ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BO NA FIDE. HOWEVER, ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 7 CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS IN TH E RETURN(S) OF INCOME AND MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80-IB OF T HE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEV ERAL DECISIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE DELIVERED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL. EVEN ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH CONSIDERING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ONE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL AGAINST THE OR DER U/S.263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.C OMMISSIONER AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFIRM ING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE DECISION IN T HE CASE OF ROGINI GARMENT(SUPRA). THE ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, PROVE D ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND ALSO PROVED ON RECORD THAT EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS BONA FIDE IN MAKING A CLAIM U/S.80-IB OF THE I.T. ACT, 1 961 ON THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER PREVALENT DECISION AVAILABLE ON THE ISSUE. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS F AILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION AT THE PENALTY STAGE AND ALSO FAILED T O PROVE THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONA FIDE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED ABOVE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECIS IONS REFERRED TO ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ARE NOT FIT C ASES FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. WE AC CORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCELLED T HE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. 8. THE LEARNED DR HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY IRREGULAR ITIES OR ILLEGALITIES IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.528/AHD/2007 SHILPA FILAMENTS PVT. LTD. 8 9. AS A RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL STANDS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05-02-2010 SD/- SD/- (A. N. PAHUJA) ACOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 05-02-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD