ASHRIT HOLDINGS LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT 8(1), MUMBAI

ITA 5393/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1740 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VINITA J MENON
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN CHATURVEDI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3); 6

Judgement Text

A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 5393 /MUM/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) M/S ASHRIT HOLDINGS LTD., C/O M/S TECHNOCRAFT IND. (INDIA) LTD., A-25 MIDC MAROL INDL. AREA, ROAD NO. 3, ANDHERI (E), MUMBAI 400 093. / V. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8(1), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 20. ./ PAN : AAACA6083E ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI VARUN CHATURVEDI REVENUE BY : MS. VINITA J. MENON (D.R) / DATE OF HEARING : 17-12-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-12-2015 !' / O R D E R PER RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BEING I TA NO. 5393/MUM/2013, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30-05-2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 1 6, MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE CIT(A)), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED WITH THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER:- ITA 5393/M/13 2 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDI NG THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN LEVYING A PENALTY OF RS. 6,57,490/ - PU RSUANT TO HIS PENALTY ORDER DATED 28.09.2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) ON THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE A. O. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPR ECIATING THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE S MADE WERE OF DEBATABLE NATURE. 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT IF THE INCOME IS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER PARTICULAR HEAD AND THE A.O ASSESSES THE SAME UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD, NO PENALTY FOR CONCE ALMENT UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES AND INVESTMENTS. 4. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDERS DATED 17.12.2007 PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) WHEREBY THE I NCOME ASSESSED OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS AT A NET LOSS OF RS. 3,51,806/ - AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES: 1 INTEREST INCOME WAS TAXED SEPARATELY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 6,75,940/- 2 RENTAL INCOME WAS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 1,20,000/- 3 EXPENSES RELATING TO LET-OUT PROPERTY INCOME OF WHICH IS ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY 8,33,934/- 4 EXCESSIVE SALARY 9,60,000/- IN THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DECLARED RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000/- WHICH WAS SHOWN AS BUSINES S INCOME AGAINST WHICH THE EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASESSEE COMPANY. THE LEARNED ASSESSING ITA 5393/M/13 3 OFFICER (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE AO) DURING THE QU ANTUM PROCEEDINGS SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT WHY SUCH INCOME SH OULD NOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AS DECLAR ED BY THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y THROUGH ITS LETTER DATED 20.9.2007 SUBMITTED THE REPLY STATING THAT TH E RENT IS RECEIVED FROM TECHNOCRAFT INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD. @RS10000/-PER M ONTH FOR USING A PART OF RESIDENTIAL PREMISES BEING STAFF QUARTERS BUT THE A.O. REJECTED CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND TREATED THE INCOME RECEIVE D AGAINST RENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND ALLOWED THE E XPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF MUNICIPAL TAXES AND ALSO STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S 24 (1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) AND THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE . SIMILARLY, THERE WERE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAID TO MRS. SUMAN S. SARAF AND MS. RITU SARAF BEING REL ATIVES OF DIRECTOR AND PART OF FAMILY , TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,60,000/- CONSI DERING THE SAME TO BE EXCESSIVE VIS--VIS THE EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE OF MRS SUMAN S SARAF AND MS RITU SARAF, THE AO ALSO HELD T HAT THESE DISALLOWED SALARY EXPENSES OF RS.9,60,000/- AS NOT BEING MADE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS. 5. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WHICH APPEAL WAS DISMISSED BY T HE CIT(A). 6 THE SECOND APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL WAS WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN ITA NO. 5898/M UM/2010 WHICH WITHDRAWAL WAS ALLOWED AND DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNA L AS WITHDRAWN VIDE ORDERS DATED 15.02.2012. ITA 5393/M/13 4 7. THE REVENUE IMPOSED PENALTY VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 WHEREBY THE REVENUE HELD THAT A.O. HAS RIGHTLY ASSE SSED INCOME FROM RENT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THE EXPENDITURE WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED BY THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT ABLE TO REBUT THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A ). SIMILARLY, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESSIVE SALARY OF RS.9,60,000/-. THUS, THE A.O. LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 6,57,490/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION 1 AND CLAUSE (A) OF EXPLANATION 4 TO THAT SECTION FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. AGGRIEVED BY PENALTY ORDERS DATED 28.09.2012 PAS SED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PREFERR ED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. FAILED TO APPREC IATE THAT NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE AND THE ADDITIONS AND DISALL OWANCES WERE OF DEBATABLE NATURE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE RE NTAL INCOME AND OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED ARE PART OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHIC H WAS A BONA-FIDE CLAIM AS THE PREMISES WAS LET OUT BEING STAFF QUARTERS AS PA RT OF ITS BUSINESS ACTIVITY TO SISTER CONCERN TO BE USED BY THE DIRECTORS AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.1,20,000/- WHICH WAS BONAFIDE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND DEPRECIATION WAS ALSO CLAIMED ON THE SA ID PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE.THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ERRED IN TREATING THE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PRO PERTY AND FURTHER THE AO ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH THE RENTED PREMISES AS PART OF BUSINESS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. SIMILARLY, THE BONAFIDE CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO THE SALARY PAID TO MRS. SUMAN SARAF AND ITA 5393/M/13 5 MS. RITU SARAF BEING RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTOR AND PART OF FAMILY , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY PAID THEM SALARIES BUT THE A.O. CONSIDERED THE SAME TO BE EXCESSIVE AND NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY INCURRED FOR THE BUS INESS OF THE COMPANY , WHEREBY DISALLOWANCE OF RS.9,60,000.00 BEING MADE B Y THE AO BY REJECTING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT TRUSTW ORTHINESS AND CONFIDENTIALITY WARE ALSO FACTORS CONSIDERED FOR PA YMENT OF REMUNERATION. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULA RS OF INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH THE REVENUE. THE ACTION OF THE A.O. HAS ALREADY BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEED INGS. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE RENTAL INCOME AS BEING INCOME FROM BUSINESS WAS FOUND TO BE PATENTLY INCORRECT AND ALSO NOT DEBATABLE, HE NCE, THE CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWABLE. THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS NOT BONAFIDE. IN SUPPORT, THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (20 10) 40 DTR (DEL) 249. SIMILARLY, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A(2) OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE A.O. DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,60,000/- BEI NG SALARY PAID TO THE RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTOR AS EXCESSIVE, THE ASSESSE E COMPANY FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THESE E MPLOYEES, EXPERIENCE AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE DE TAILS OF DUTIES AND WORK ASSIGNED TO THEM. THUS, IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THIS WAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IN THE FI RST APPEAL . THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY THAT SINCE ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED AND THE CLAIM IS BONA FIDE, DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE, HENCE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O. WAS SU STAINED. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. ITA 5393/M/13 6 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMIT TED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR CONCEALED ANY INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INC OME WITH THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RENTED OUT THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS USED AS STAFF QUARTERS WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOM E AND DUE TAXES WERE PAID TO THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE IN THE QUANTUM PRO CEEDINGS TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT M EAN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAS ACTUALLY INCURRED THE EXPENSES WITH RESPECT TO THE RENTED PR OPERTY WHICH WERE CLAIMED AS EXPENSES AGAINST THE RENTAL INCOME AND IT IS NOT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE EITHER BOGUS OR NOT AT ALL INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . THIS IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE A.O. WITH REGARD TO THE HEAD OF INC OME IN WHICH THE SAME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH WHICH DOES NOT MEA N THAT INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS EMPLOYED MRS. SUMAN S. SARAF AND MS. RI TU SARAF IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SALARY WAS ACTUALLY PAID T O THEM AND IT IS NOT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT NO SALARY HAS BEEN P AID OR BOGUS CLAIM OF EXPENSES HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ,WH EREAS SALARY HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SAID MRS SUMAN S SARAF AND MS RITU SARAF, BEING RELATIVES OF DIRECTORS AND FAM ILY MEMBERS BUT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE BY THE A.O. U/S 40A(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS AGAIN A MATTER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE A.O. AN D THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WHICH DOES NOT MEAN THAT INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED OR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME. THE STAFF QUARTERS WHICH WERE LET OUT AS A BUSINESS ASSET AND HENCE TH E ASSESSEE TREATED RENTAL ITA 5393/M/13 7 INCOME AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ALSO CLAIMED DEPRECIA TION AGAINST STAFF QUARTERS. 11. THE LD. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND THE CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND AL SO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY HAS DULY DECLARED AND DISCLOSED THE RENTAL INCOME EARNED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED WITH THE REVENUE AND TREATED THE SAME UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHILE THE REVENUE HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE SAME INCOME UNDER THE HEAD AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY WHICH IS LATER ON SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) . IN THE SECOND APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS BEING WITHDRAWN ON AN APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY REQUESTING THE TRIBUNAL FOR WI THDRAWAL OF APPEAL. IT IS NOT THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE THAT RENTAL INCOM E EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RENT HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION AT ALL WHILE THE SAME HAS BEEN DULY OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A LTHOUGH IN THE OPINION OF A.O. THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THIS IS A MATTER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE A.O. AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY , THAT THE AO HELD THAT I NCOME SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT INCOME HAS BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. SIMILARLY, THE R EVENUE HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED AGAINST THE SAI D RENTAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN INCURRED OR ARE NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY OR BOGUS EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. RATHER , IT IS A CASE WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE A CLAIM OF CHARGEABILITY OF INCOME UNDER INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONS WHICH HAS NOT FOUND F AVOUR WITH THE REVENUE WHICH HAS BROUGHT THE SAME INCOME TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF RELIANCE ITA 5393/M/13 8 PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS EXPLAINED CONCEPT OF PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND CONCEALMENT OF INCOME U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO WITHDRAWN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO END THE LITIGATION, SO TREATING THE REN TAL INCOME BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY INSTEAD OF BU SINESS INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, BUT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH CA N BE BROUGHT WITHIN PENALTY PROVISIONS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF PROVISIONS O F SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, HENCE, PENALTY ON THIS GROUND CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, WITH RESPECT TO THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 9,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESSIVE SALARY PAID TO MRS. SUMAN S. SARAF AND MS. RITU SARAF ON THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SAME IS EXCESSIVE AS THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS OF EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION OF THESE EMPLO YEES, EXPERIENCE AND OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT AND THE DETAILS OF DUTIES AND WORK ASSIGNED TO THEM, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AGAIN IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PENALTY PROVISION U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. TO END THE LITIGATION, THE ASSESSEE ALSO WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, F ILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL . CONSIDERING THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE COM PANY IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TO TALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR VIEW, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DULY FURNISHED THE CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH ALTHOUGH HAS NOT FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE REVENU E BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED INCOME AS PER MANDATE OF SECTIO N 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT TO FALL WITHIN FOUR CORNERS OF CHARGEABILITY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT , HENCE KEEPING IN VIEW THE PECUILAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT AND WE DIRECT THE DELETION OF THE PENALTY LEVIED OF ITA 5393/M/13 9 RS.6,57,490/- ON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE AO AND AS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. WE ORDER ACCORDIN GLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. !' # $% &! ' 30-12-2015 ( ) SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ 8 MUMBAI ; &! DATED 30-12-2015 [ .9../ R.K. R.K. R.K. R.K. , EX. SR. PS ! '#$% &%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. : ( ) / THE CIT(A)- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 4. : / CIT- CONCERNED, MUMBAI 5. =>( 99?@ , ?@ , $ 8 / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI H BENCH 6. (BC D / GUARD FILE. ' / BY ORDER, = 9 //TRUE COPY// (/') * ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ 8 / ITAT, MUMBAI