ACIT 19(2), MUMBAI V. KALPAVRUKSHA DEVELOPERS, MUMBAI

ITA 5397/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7008 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM TIWARI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 27

Judgement Text

1 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A NO.5397/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ACIT-19(2), MUMBAI VS M/S KALPAVRUKSHA DEVELOPERS 821, PAREKH MARKET MAMA PARMANAND MARG OPERA HOUSE, MUMBAI-4 PAN :ABGPM7171B APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI RAM TIWARI RESPONDENT BY NONE DATE OF HEARING 06-06-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13-06-2018 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-30, MUMBAI DATED 31-08-215 AND IT PERTAINS T O AY 2011-12. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(L)(C) OF RS.12,00,000/- FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED FN DELETING THE PE NALTY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE CASE LAW IN RELIANCE PETRO PRODUC TS LTD, (SUPRA), IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE HONBLE D ELHI H.C. IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD., WHEREIN WHILE REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD. ( SUPRA), IT WAS 2 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 HELD THAT 'IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING OF CLAIM , WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INCORRECT PARTICULAR S OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CL AIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONA FIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDE S BEING INCORRECT IN LAW IS MALA FIDE. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1 ) WOULD COME IN PLAY AND WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE?' 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CAS E, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) WHEREIN THE AO HAS MADE A DDITION TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND TH AT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED FOR WHICH BROKERAGE WA S PAID FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE OR SERVICES PROVI DED BY ANY OF THE BROKERS. THEREAFTER, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROC EEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AND AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE, LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN C ONSIDERED BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE S TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. MERELY STATING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS JUS T AN OPINION OF THE A.O. WOULD NOT SUFFICE. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE CLAIM AF TER CONDUCTING DETAILED INVESTIGATION. THERE WAS NO CLAUSE FOR ALTERNATE AC COMMODATION IN THE CONTRACT. THE INFORMATION U/S 133(6) WERE CALLED FR OM THE PARTIES AND NO SPECIFIC DETAILS OF SERVICES RENDERED FOR WHICH BRO KERAGE WAS PAID FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WE'RE PROVIDED BY ANY OF THE BROKERS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATED HOW IS IT REL ATABLE TO BUSINESS. THE TENANTS ALSO DENIED TO HAVE BEEN PROVIDED WITH AN ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION. B) THE CASE LAWS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. FROM THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN EACH CASE HAS T O BE SEEN IN -THE CONTEXT AND THEN PENALTY PROVISIONS SHOULD BE APPLIED TO SEE WH ETHER THERE WAS THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR THE APPELLA NT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS SO AS TO CALL FOR THE PENAL ACTION UNDE R SECTION 271(L)(C). THUS THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS ACCOUNT TO PROVE IT OTHERWIS E 3 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 7. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN D EFINED AS NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT ; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOU S ; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT COPY OR TRANSCRIPT .' THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS LEVIABLE IF THE AO IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT THAT ANY P ERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT MENTI ONS THAT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THE ACT , SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO OR THE CIT (APPEALS) OR TH E COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH H E IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONAFID E AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATIO N OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM, THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DIS ALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHA LL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECT ION 271(1), BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. THE NECESSARY INGREDIENTS FOR ATTRACTING EXPLANATIO N 1 TO SECTION 2 7 1 ( 1 ) (C) ARE THAT (I) THE PERSON FAILS TO OFFER THE EXPLANATION , OR (II) HE OFFERS THE EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND B Y THE AO OR THE CIT (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE, OR (III) THE PERSON OFFERS EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE A ND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. IF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE (I I) & (III) CATEGORIES, THUS THE DEEMING PROVISION PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION 1 TO SECT ION 271(1) (C) COMES INTO PLAY, AND THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTI NG THE TOTAL INCOME SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PAR TICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTIO N 271(1). 8..RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA (P.) LTD. V/S COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X -II, ( 2013) 38 TAXMANN.COM 448(SC). THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS OF WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED AN Y EXPLANATION FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE BURDEN IS THEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW OTHERWIS E, BY COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE'. . 9. KEEPING IN VIEW, THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FALSE CLAIM OF EXPENSES OF RS . 40,00,000/-AND CONCEALED INCOME AND FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS THE PENALTY PROVISIONS U/S. 271 (L)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE CLE ARLY ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. 4 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 HEREAFTER, THE UNDERSIGNED PROPOSE TO IMPOSE PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERR ED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO RELIED UPON CERTAIN JUDICIAL P RECEDENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD 322 ITR 158 (SC). THE RELEVA NT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE EXTRACTED AT PARA 4 ON PAGES 4 TO 9 OF CIT(A)S ORDER. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ARE THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF PARTI CULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF COMMISSION PAID TO BROKERS AS THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY COMMISSION PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE NEXUS BETWEEN COMMISSION PAYMENT AND RENDERING OF S ERVICES OF SUCH BROKERS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE 9 PARTIES TO WHOM BROKERAGE WAS PAID DULY CONFIRMED THE SERVICES REND ERED, PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND ALL ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSES AND HAVE PAN AS WELL. THE EVIDENCES CLEAR LY ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF BROKERAGE WAS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THOSE PARTIES IN LOCATING THE ALTERNATIVE 5 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 ACCOMMODATION WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO INCUR TO EN SURE THE PROMPT. 4. THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDEN TS, INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RE LIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD VS CIT(SUPRA) OBSERVED THAT H AVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THAT THE EXPLANATION IS BONA FI DE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMP UTATION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. THE RELEVANT PORTION O F THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED BELOW:- 5.15 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT HAD AGAIN FURNISHED THE DETAILS IN CONNECTION TO EVIDEN CES RELATING TO SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM BROKERAGE HAD BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE NINE PARTIES TO WHOM BROKERAGE WAS PAID HAD DULY CONFIRMED THE SERV ICES RENDERED, PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AN D ALL ARE INCOME ASSESSEES QUOTED WITH THEIR PAN NUMBER AS WE LL. THE EVIDENCES CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT EXPENDITURE INCU RRED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF BROKERAGE WAS FOR THE SERVICES RENDERED B Y THESE PARTIES IN LOCATING THE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION WHICH THE AP PELLANT HAD TO INCUR TO ENSURE THE PROMPT AND TIMELY VACATION OF THE ENT IRE PREMISES TO THE BUYER TRUST. 5.16 THE APPELLANT HAD TO ARRANGE FOR A LTERNATE ACCOMMODATION THEMSELVES FROM THE COMPENSATION RECE IVED BY THEM, AND WHEREBY THEY HAD TO INDIVIDUALLY ENSURE PAYMEN T OF RENT TOWARDS THEIR RESPECTIVE ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION TO THE RE SPECTIVE TENANTS. IT WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE APPELLANT TO TAKE ALL S TEPS AS ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ALL TENANTS SHOULD HANDOVER TIMELY V ACANT POSSESSION. IT ALSO .LOGICAL FACT THAT IN CASE OF ANY CONTRACT, TI ME IS THE ESSENTIAL FACTOR. HENCE, THE APPELLANT HAD TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE TEN ANTS WERE PAID COMPENSATION AND ALSO FURTHER ENSURE THAT ALL OF T HEM WOULD HANDOVER 6 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 VACANT POSSESSION WITHIN THE DESIRED TIME FRAME. TH E APPELLANT WHO WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT ALL THE TENANTS SHOULD VACATE AND HAND OVER POSSESSION WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME PERIOD HAD TO THEREFORE ENGAGE TO ASSIST AND HELP IN SMOOTHENING AND HASTENING THE PROCESS OF HANDING OVER VACANT POSSESSION. 5.17 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THAT FACT TH AT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE FROM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. IN THE EVENT OF ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE IN ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO REVISIT THE FACTS AND MERI TS OF THE CASE. THE AO IS OBLIGED TO SET OUT REASONS FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION THAT PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIABLE IN ANY CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD I NCURRED EXPENSES IN THE COURSE OF ITS BUSINESS. THE NATURE AND EXTENT O F THE PROJECT TO BE HANDLED WAS HUGE. IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE APPEL LANT TO ON THEIR OWN COMPLETE THE PROCESS OF VACATING THE PREMISES OF EA CH TENANT. THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON BROKERAGE INCLUDED TO ASSIS T IN FINALIZING ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION WHICH THE APPELLANT HAD TO INCUR TO ENSURE PROMPT AND TIMELY VACATING OF THE FULL PREMISES TO THE BUYER TRUST. IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELLANT HAD INCURRED THE EXPENSE TO EN SURE SPECIFIC DELIVERY (VACANT POSSESSION) TO THE BUYER WITHIN TH E TIME LIMIT SPECIFIED. 5.18 IT IS TRITE LAW THAT ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS ARE TWO DISTINCT PROCEEDINGS AND MERELY BECAUSE DISALLOWANC E WAS MADE THIS WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY DE HOR S AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS IS ALSO A MATERIAL FACTOR. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT OF BROKE RAGE. IN THIS LIGHT, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE EXPLANATI ON OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT WAS BONAFIDE. FROM THE FACTS EMANATING IN THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT IS ABLE TO OFFER A BONAFIDE EXPL ANATION AS PER CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. 5.19 IT IS NOW WELL-SETTLED THAT AN ADDITION MADE TO INCOME RAISES A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION 1 BUT SUCH IS AN ENTIRETY REBUTTABLE ONE AND THE SCHEME O F REBUTTAL IS PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION ITSELF. IT IS ALSO WE LL-SETTLED THAT THE INITIAL ONUS L IES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HIS CASE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF EXPLANATION 1. 5.20 THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS LIES ON HIM IN TERMS OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS:- . (A) THE APPELLANT OFFERED AN EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. AND IS ALSO ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SA ME. (B) THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MA TERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. 7 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 5.21 HAVING CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY LD. AR, I FIND THAT EVEN THE PROVISION S OF CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE AS THE APPELLANT HAS SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THAT THE EXPLANATION IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAM E AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME, HAVE BEEN DISCLOSE D. 5.22 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND EXPLANATIO N OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT THEREOF AND PARTICULARLY TAKING COGNIZANC E OF THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS, PENALTY OF RS. 12,00,000/- IS CANCELLED:- I) RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD, (SUPRA) - IT WAS HELD THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. II) CIT VS. SHIV LAL DESAI AND SONS 114 ITR 377 (BOM) - IT WAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY. III) SHRI ISHAR ALLOYS & STEEL LTD VS ACIT 68 ITD 117 (M UM) IT WAS HELD THAT ACTION UNDER SECTION 2711)(C) WAS NOT VAL ID AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A BONAFIDE BUT UNSUCCESSFUL CLAIM FOR DEPRECIA TION. 5. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD T HE LD.DR AND PERUSED MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEV IED U/S 271(1)(C) OF RAS.12 LAKHS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT LTD, AF TER CONSIDERING THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD VS CIT(SUPRA) HELD THAT IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING OF CLAIM WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONA FIDE. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT ALTHOUGH ASSESSEE CL AIMS TO HAVE PAID BROKERAGE TO ARRANGE THE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION, BUT FAILED TO 8 ITA 5730/MUM/2015 SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO BON A FIDENESS IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD VS CIT(SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE L D.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO L EVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) TOWARDS ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF BROKERAGE PAID ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAIL ED TO PROVE NEXUS BETWEEN BROKERAGE PAYMENT AND RENDERING OF ANY SERV ICE BY SUCH BROKERS. BUT, IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT THE CIT( A) HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS THAT THE ASSESEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE NEXUS BETWEEN BROKERAGE PAYMENT AND RENDERING OF SERVICES BY SUCH BROKERS TO MAKE ALTERNATIVE ACCOMMODATION FOR SMOOTH DELIVE RY OF ENTIRE PREMISES TO THE BUYER TRUST. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED IN LAW, BY ITSEL F, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO A S TO LEVY PENALTY IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD VS CIT(SUPRA). THE REVENUE FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CONTRARY DECISION AGAINST THE R ATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT LTD VS CIT(SUPRA). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THE LD.CIT(A)