Smt. Aarti Jain, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 5281/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6829 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P S KASHYAP
• Keywords: Gift; Onus to prove
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 1 OF 11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.-5280 & 5281/DEL/2013 ( ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04) AARTI JAIN W/O DEEPAK KUMAR JAIN 47, SADAR KABARI BAZAR, MEERUT. AATPJ7767L VS ITO WARD-1, MEERUT. ASSESSEE BY SH. P.S. KASHYAP, CA REVENUE BY SH. SARABJEET SINGH, DR ORDER PER SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER CONFIRMING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 5280 PERTAINS TO AY 2002-03 & ITA NO. 5281 PERTAINS TO AY 2003-04. BOTH THESE APPEALS EMANATE FROM THE COMMO N ORDER DATED 13/06/2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-MEERUT. DATE OF HEARING 03.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.07.2016 ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 2 OF 11 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE AY 200 2-03 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 16 LAKHS FROM THREE PERSONS, WHEREAS IN AY 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFTS AMOUNTING T O RS. 10 LAKHS FROM TWO PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS, GIFT D EEDS, COPIES OF ITRS, COPIES OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS, COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND COPIES OF PAN FOR ALL THE DONORS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THESE GIFTS IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ALSO. HOWEVER, THE AO ADDED THESE AMOUNTS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PERSONS WHO WERE NOT RELATIVES, THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE GIFTS WERE ISOLATED IN NATURE A ND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THESE GIFTS TRANSACTIO NS. IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS AN D THE APPEALS BEFORE THE ITAT WERE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS. 489,600/- FOR AY 2002-03AND OF RS. 371,200/- FOR AY 2003-04 WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) AND NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, THEY ARE BEING D ISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 3 OF 11 GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA 5280: 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY UPHELD THE PENALTY OR DER AS IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 4,89,600/- CIT(A). 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE THE CI T(A) HAS ERRED BY UPHELD THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF HIS ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATER IAL AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECT URE, BAD IN LAW AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA 5281: 1. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED BY UPHELD THE PENALTY OR DER AS IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 3,71,200/-. 2. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE THE CI T(A) HAS ERRED BY UPHELD THE PENALTY AS LEVIED BY AO U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE BASIS OF HIS ALLEGED INTERFERENCE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATER IAL AND EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, IS BASED ON SURMISES, CONJECT URE, BAD IN LAW AND AT ANY RATE VERY EXCESSIVE. 3. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE QUANTUM PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HER ONUS BY PROVIDING COPIES OF GIFT DEEDS, AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF ITRS, COPIES OF WEALTH TAX RETURNS, COPIES OF BA NK STATEMENTS ETC. AND HENCE THE INITIAL BURDEN REGARDING IDENTITY, GENUIN ENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED. FU RTHER THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN C IT VS. RELIANCE PETRO ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 4 OF 11 PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC) THAT MERE MAKI NG OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISH ALL INACCURATE PARTICULARS, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1) (C) WAS PATENTLY WRONG AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PERSONS WHO ARE AL LEGED TO HAVE GIFTED THE AMOUNTS WERE HAVING MEAGER SOURCE OF INCOME AND THAT THE AO HAD MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND HAD THEREAFTER REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE AND HENCE IT WAS A FIT CASE FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENAL TY U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME TAX RETURNS O F THE DONORS WERE NOT ACCOMPANIED BY BALANCE SHEETS AND THE WEALTH TAX RE TURNS WERE ALSO NOT ACCOMPANIED BY THE COMPUTATION OF NET WEALTH AND, T HEREFORE, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS COULD NOT ESTABLISHED. TH E LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT THE PENALTIES IMPOSED SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STE EL LTD. V. STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26, HAD LAID DOWN THE POSITION OF LAW BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT BOUND TO LEVY PENALTY AUTO MATICALLY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. ALSO IN CA SE OF CIT V. KHODAY ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 5 OF 11 ESWARA (83 ITR 369) (SC), INCIDENTALLY REPORTED IN SAME ITR VOLUME, IT IS HELD THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON BASIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN ORIGINAL ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT HAS RECENTLY REITERATED THE LAW IN CASE OF DILIP N. SHROFF V. JT . CIT [2007] 291 ITR 519 BY HOLDING IN PARA 62 THAT FINDING IN ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THE AUTHORITIES HAVE TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH FROM DIFFERENT ANGLE. THE STATUTE REQUIRES A SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER: HE IS REQUIRED TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION SO AS TO SHOW THAT THERE IS PRIMARY EV IDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE AMOUNT OR FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS AND THIS ONUS IS TO BE DISCHARGED BY THE DEPARTMENT. W HILE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BEGIN WITH THE PRESUMPTION THAT HE IS GU ILTY. SINCE THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS VARIES FROM THAT IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT A PART ICULAR RECEIPT IS INCOME CANNOT AUTOMATICALLY BE ADOPTED, THOUGH A FINDING I N THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONSTITUTES GOOD EVIDENCE IN THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE AUTHORITIES MUST CONSIDER T HE MATTER AFRESH AS THE QUESTION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FROM A DIFFERENT ANGL E. IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 6 OF 11 NOT CONCLUSIVE. ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS DONT OPERATE AS RES JUDICATA IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FOR THIS PROPO SITION RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN CIT VS. DHARAMCHAND L. SHAH (1993) 204 ITR 462 (BOM). IN VIJAY POWER GENERATORS LTD VS. ITO (2008)6 DTR 6 4 (DEL) IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THOUGH THEY CONSTITUTE GOO D EVIDENCE DO NOT CONSTITUTE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE IN PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS. DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THERE HAS TO BE REAPPRAISAL OF THE VER Y SAME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE AND IF FURTHER MATERIAL IS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS, IT IS ALL THE MORE NECESSARY THAT SUCH FURTHER MATERIAL SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED IN AN ATTEMPT TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED HIS INC OME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THUS, UNDER PENALTY PROCEED INGS ASSESSEE CAN DISCHARGE HIS BURDEN BY RELYING ON THE SAME MATERIA L ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT IS MADE BY CONTENDING THAT ALL NECESSARY DISCLOSURES WERE MADE AND THAT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL DISCLOSED THERE C ANNOT BE A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER IF THERE IS ANY MATERIAL OR ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SAME CAN BE PRODUCED IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS BOTH ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS ARE DISTINCT AND ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 7 OF 11 SEPARATE. IN CIT VS. M/S SIDHARTHA ENTERPRISES (200 9) 184 TAXMAN 460 (P & H)(HC) IT WAS HELD THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE CANNOT BE READ AS LAYING DOWN THAT IN EVERY CASE WHERE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE INACCURATE, PENALTY MUST FOLLOW. EVEN SO, THE CONCE PT OF PENALTY HAS NOT UNDERGONE CHANGE BY VIRTUE OF THE SAID JUDGMENT. PE NALTY IS IMPOSED ONLY WHEN THERE IS SOME ELEMENT OF DELIBERATE DEFAULT. 6. AT THIS JUNCTURE IT MAY BE APPOSITE TO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P.) LTD . [2010] 322 ITR 158/189 TAXMAN 322, WHEREIN THE COURT WHILE INTERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT, HAS HELD THAT A GLANCE AT THE SAID PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST 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 OF HIS INCO ME. IN THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, THE COURT FOUND THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF CON CEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, NOR WAS IT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT IT H AD TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THAT CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSE SSEE HAD GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE COURT NOTED THAT AS PER LAW LEXICO N, THE MEANING OF THE ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 8 OF 11 WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN THE PL URAL SENSE); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE, THE WORD 'PARTICULAR' USED IN SECTION 271(1)( C ) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS: 'NOT ACCURAT E, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT.' THE COURT OBSERVED THAT READING THE WO RDS 'INACCURATE' AND 'PARTICULARS' IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DE TAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORREC T, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. THE COURT NOTED THAT IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT WAS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPP LIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND ACCORDINGLY, HELD THAT, PRIMA FACIE , THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICU LARS. THE COURT REPELLED THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE TH AT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTER EST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME'. THE COURT HELD THAT IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNO T TANTAMOUNT TO ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 9 OF 11 FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN THAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ) MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED. THE COURT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETUR N FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH T HE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 7. REVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE PENALTY ORDERS, HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEEE HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HOWEVER, THE PENALTY ORDERS ARE WOEFULLY SILENT ON THE ISSUE AS TO HOW THIS SATISFA CTION OF CONCEALMENT/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WA S ARRIVED AT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RELIED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WHILE CONFIRMING THE PENALTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 26.00 LACS AS GIFTS FROM 5 PARTIES IN A SPAN OF TWO YEARS WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY FAMILY RELATI ON AND THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO WARRANT THESE GIFTS, THE CREDIBI LITY AND BONA FIDE OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS ERODED AND THEREFORE, TH E PENALTY WAS SUSTAINABLE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS KIND OF FINDING MIGHT BE VERY RELEVANT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BUT WILL NO T SUFFICE IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 10 OF 11 PERTAINING TO PENALTY, THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS A UTHORITATIVELY LAID DOWN THAT MAKING OF A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE WILL NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC), THE HONB LE APEX COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN O RDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE PRESENT IS NOT A CAS E OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING IN CORRECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEAN ING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENS E); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFO RE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271 (1) (C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE R ETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT IS NOT AS IF ANY STA TEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPPLIED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT . HENCE, AT LEAST, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON IN TEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME.' W E DO NOT THINK THAT ITA NOS. 5280 & 5281/D/2013 SMT. AARTI JAIN PAGE 11 OF 11 SUCH CAN BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WOR DS. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE T O THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, M AKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. 8. ALTHOUGH BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS/CONCEALED INCOME, ON A CONSIDERATION ON THE FACTS, SUCH A VIEW IS NOT TENABLE IS THE PRESENT AP PEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ENTIRE PENAL TY FOR BOTH THE YEARS. 9. IN THE FINAL RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.07.2016 SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28.07.2016 *KAVITA ARORA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI