Vinod Singhvi, JODHPUR V. ACIT, JODHPUR

ITA 547/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 54723314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Keywords: Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 153A; 144; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 547, 33 & 34/JU/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 TO, 2008-09 SHRI VINOD SINGHVI VS. THE A.C.I.T 3, DEV NAGAR CENTRAL CIRCLE -3 PAL LINK ROAD JODHPUR JODHPUR PAN NO. AIAPS 0053 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN SHRI GAUTAM CHAND BAID DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SEHGAL, DR DATE OF HEARING : 18.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.03.2014 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. ALL THE ABOVE THREE CAPTIONED APPEALS, PERTAINING T O THE SAME ASSESSEE, WERE HEARD TOGETHER. SO, FOR THE SAKE 2 OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE TH EM BY A COMMON ORDER. ITA NO. 547/JU/2013 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT CONSEQUENT UPON A SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF S INGHVI GROUP BETWEEN 25.3.2008 TO 27.03.2008, NOTICE U/S 1 53A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 12.09.2008. THE ASSE SSEE DISCLOSED BY FILING RETURN OF INCOME [ROI] ON11.02. 2009 INCOME OF RS. 2,90,93,278/- IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOT ICE. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 153A/144 OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2009 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,05,51,910/-. CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT', FOR SHORT] WAS INITIATED AND A PENALTY OF RS. 13,72 ,200/- WAS IMPOSED VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2012. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRI CTED TO A PENALTY WITH RESPECT TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 3 44,28,239/-. THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER AGGRIEVED AND FILED THIS SECOND APPEAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW, BAD IN FACTS AND PERVERSE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 271AAA. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING PENALTY ON THE INVESTMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 44,28,239/- WHICH WAS ACQUIRED OUT OF THE INCOME SURRENDERED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) R.W. SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTION 271AAA. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE: A. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA IS IMPOSABLE. 4 B. THE CONCEALED INCOME ESTIMATED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS PATENTLY ERRONEOUS. 5. THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS AT OR BEFORE THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I T WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT NO SUCH PENALTY IS EXIG IBLE ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER H AND, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THAT THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LETTING OUT OF PREMISES FOR MARRIAGES THROUGH HIS CONCERN M/S SIDH ARTH PALACE AND ALSO DOES THE BUSINESS OF COMMODITY TRANSACTIONS UNDER THE TRADE NAME OF M/S VINOD AND COMPANY. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED 5 U/S 153A R.W.S 144 OF THE ACT AT RS. 7,05,51,910/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 2,19,93,278/- ON 29.12.2009. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THIS ADDITION BEF ORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SUSTAINED THIS ADDITION AND SO ALSO THE TRIBUNAL HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT O F RS. 19,81,311/- ON ACCOUNT OF DUMMY CLIENT TRADING IND ULGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE O N ACCOUNT OF UNEXAMINED AND UNDECLARED CASH OF RS. 14,94,697. THE A.O. HAS RESTRICTED HIMSELF AND HAS IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271AAA ON THE INCOME SURRENDERE D RS. 1,55,94,639/-. THE A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE CONC EALED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF FAILURE TO FURNISH CONFIRMATIO N OF ACCOUNTS FOR A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2008-09 AS UNDER: A. A.Y. 2006-07 RS. 26,69,808/- B. A.Y. 2007-08 RS. 49,90,653/- C A.Y. 2008-09 RS. 19,81,311/- AGAINST THE ABOVE ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS. 59,79,150 /- FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED INCOME IN THE FORM OF ASSETS, HAVING BEEN EARNED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR 6 AT RS. 15,94,639/- AND HAS PAID TAX A PER MODIFIED STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) R.W.S EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1)(C)/SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE HAVE FOUND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE ASSE TS AS HAVING BEEN EARNED IN THE YEAR OF SEARCH, THOUGH RE LATED TO EARLIER YEARS, NO PENALTY IS EXIGIBLE IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS FULFILLED ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN THEREIN. IT IS NOTICED THAT AFTER THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL VIA MA BEARING NO. 30/JU/12 PERTAINING TO ITA NO. 177/JU/2011 DATED 17.6.2013, A LOSS HAS BEEN ASSESSED AT RS. 19,81,31 1/- IN PLACE OF INCOME AGAINST WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPO SED. COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN MA IS ENCLOSED IN THE P APER BOOK. ANY INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE FORM OF ASSETS U /S 132(4) R.W. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA CANNO T BE A GROUND FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AS THE ASSESSEE HA S PAID TAXES ALONGWITH INTEREST AS PER STATEMENT ITSELF WH ICH WAS MODIFIED ON THE BASIS OF ACCRUAL WORKING OF INCOME. THIS FINDING GETS SUPPORTED FROM THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE 7 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANHAIY ALAL REPORTED IN 299 ITR 19. THE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED AND ON WHICH THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ARE RENDERED ON DIFFERENT FACTS. NONE OF THESE DECISIONS IS RELATING TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND SUB -SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OR EXPLANATION (5) APPENDED T O SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, MERE FAILURE OF ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ACCOUNTS OF THE CLIENTS IN W HICH MODIFICATION WAS DONE DUE TO NECESSITY OF BUSINESS AND AS PER NORMS OF EXCHANGE OF THE INSTITUTION, AN ACT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PARTICULARLY, WHEN COMPLETE IDENTITY OF THE CLIENTS WERE GIVEN WITH WHOM BUSINE SS OF BROKERAGE WAS CARRIED ON. THUS, INABILITY TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS FACT, IN ITSELF, CANNOT CONSTITUT E A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. MOREOVER, WHATEVER INCOME W AS GENERATED IN THE PAST HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN THE FORM OF ASSETS , PARTICULARLY, WHEN NO SUCH INCOME WAS FOUND FOR THI S YEAR. 8 THE LD. CIT(A), IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER MADE U/ S 144/153A OF THE ACT, HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECTION T O ALLOW TELESCOPY OF THE ADDITION AND WHEN THE A.O. HAS MAD E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ASSETS, HE IS BOUND TO ALLOW THE SAME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. IN THE LIGHT OF DECISION RENDERED IN QUANTUM APPEAL AS INCOME EARNE D/AN ASSET ACQUIRED OUT OF SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED T WICE AND THIS IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . ARYAMAL BALCHAND REPORTED IN 165 ITR 453 [RAJ]. PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS AND QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AN D DISTINCT AND THE PARAMETERS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY NOT APPLY TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE IN THIS CASE AND THEREFORE, WE ORDER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE PENALTY. 9 ITA NOS. 33 & 34/JU/2013 A.YS. 2006-07 & 2007-08 5. IN A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT RESPECTIVELY: A.Y. 2006-07 1] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENAL TY IMPOSED BY THE AO AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW, BAD IN FACTS, PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. 2] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE SAME, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE V ALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WAS CHALLENGED IN THE PENAL TY PROCEEDING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATIV E: A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY ON THE A DDITION OF RS. 29,68,808/- CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT BY IN VOKING THE 10 EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 IS ATTRACTED ONLY WIT H REFERENCE TO INCOME / ASSET DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AFTER SEARCH AND NOT FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. B)THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF INVESTMENT IN THE A Y 2008-09 ACCRUED TO THE DATE OF SEARCH AND DECLARED THE SAME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) READ WITH SECTION 271 AAA AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSM ENT OF INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN EACH YEAR CANNOT BE A GR OUND FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). C) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE PENALTY ON THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT RS. 3,07,729/- IN THE RETURN FILED U /S 153A. D) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS UNJUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY W HEN THE ASSETS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BAS IS OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) READ WITH EXPLANATION 271AAA FOR THE AY 2008-09 IS MUCH MORE THAN THE TOTAL INCO ME COMPUTED FROM THE CLIENTS CODE IN THE AY 2005-06, A Y 2006- 07, AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09. 11 4] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,68,808/- MADE BY THE AO AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 3,07,729/-SURRENDERED IN T HE RETURN FILED U/S 153A IS FAR LESS THAN THE LOSS COMPUTED B Y THE LD. AO IN THE AY 2005-06 AT RS. 52,67,088/- WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE SET OFF FROM INCOME ASSESSED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 5] THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO R AISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUND AT OR BEFORE THE T IME OF HEARING. A.Y 2007-08 1] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENAL TY IMPOSED BY THE AO AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW, BAD IN FACTS, PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. 2] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY AND FURTHER ENHANCING THE SAME, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE V ALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF WAS CHALLENGED IN THE PENAL TY PROCEEDING AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 12 3] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE AND IN THE ALTERNATIV E: A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY ON THE A DDITION OF RS. 49,90,799/- CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT BY IN VOKING THE EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271 IS ATTRACTED ONLY WIT H REFERENCE TO INCOME / ASSET DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME AFTER SEARCH AND NOT FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME. B)THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE SUBMISSION THAT T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF INVESTMENT IN THE A Y 2008-09 ACCRUED TO THE DATE OF SEARCH AND DECLARED THE SAME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) READ WITH SECTION 271 AAA AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSM ENT OF INCOME ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN EACH YEAR CANNOT BE A GR OUND FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). C) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ENHANCING THE PENALTY ON THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT RS. 16,84,860/- IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A. 13 4] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,90,799/- MADE BY THE AO AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 16,84,860/- SURRENDERED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 153A IS IS TO BE SET OFF FROM THE LOSS COMPUTED BY THE A.O. IN THE AY 2005-06 AT RS. 52,67 ,088/- AS REDUCED BY THE SET OFF ALLOWABLE IN THE A.Y. 2006-0 7. 5] THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO R AISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUND AT OR BEFORE THE T IME OF HEARING. 6. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NARRATED THE RELEVANT AND MATERIAL FACTS OF THESE CASES WHILE NARRATING FOR A .Y. 2008-09, THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE PARTIES FOR AN D AGAINST THEIR CASES ARE ALMOST SAME AND SIMILAR. AF TER SURRENDER WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSETS AS INCOME EARNED WHILE MAKING STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON THE BASIS THEREO F IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION 5A AND OF SECTION U/S 271(1)(C) AND SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT WHICH IS AS UNDER: 14 A. CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE RS. 4000000 B. INVESTMENT IN CLIENTS CODE FOR WHICH NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED RS. 1150593 C. UNEXPLAINED CASH RS. 4555303 D. GOLD ORNAMENTS RS. 1888743 7. THE BREAK-UP OF INCOME OF RS. 44,28,239/- ON WHI CH PENALTY IS SUSTAINED IS AS UNDER: INCOME DISCLOSED IN FORM OF ASSETS IN THE A.Y. 2008 -09: LESS INCOME DECLARED IN [CIT(A) PARA D PAGE 16 RS. 1,15,94,639/- A. A.Y. 2006-07 RS. 3,07,729/- B. A.Y. 2007-08 RS. 16,84,860/- C A.Y. 2008-09 RS. 51,73,811/- RS. 71,66,400/- INCOME ON WHICH PENALTY SUSTAINED RS. 44,28,23 9/- 8. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED AND HELD IN A.Y. 20 08- 09, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS ES, NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE EITHER ON INCOME DISCLOSED U/S 271(1)(C) FOR A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 OR U/S 271A AA OF 15 THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 132(4) WHEN READ ALONGWITH EXPLANATION 5A AS STATED ABOVE, THE INTENTION OF LAW BECOME CLEAR. IT IS NO TICED THAT INCOME SURRENDERED IN A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2008-0 9 IS MUCH MORE THEN COMPUTED BY THE A.O. FROM CLIENT COD E FOR ALL THE YEARS WHICH COMES TO RS. 7,12,208/-. T HE BREAK-UP OF THE SAME IS AS UNDER: A. A.Y. 2006-07 RS. 3,07,729/- B. A.Y. 2007-08 RS. 16,84,860/- C A.Y. 2008-09 RS. 1,15,94,639/- RS. 1,35,87,228/- THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE REDUCED FROM NET INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. FROM C LIENTS CODE AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION AND THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED MI STAKE IN CONFIRMING PENALTY AS WELL AS ENHANCING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) FOR A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08. 16 9. THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS SUPPORT OUR ABOVE FINDIN G: A. DEVI DAS SUKHANI VS. DCIT 94 DTR 121 [JODHPUR] B. DCIT VS. NARESH KUMAR AGARWAL ITA NO 1289-1290/KOL/2012 DATED 17.1.2014 [ITAT, KOLKOTA C BENCH] C. CIT VS. KRISHI TYRE RETREADING AND RUBBER INDUST RIES 360 ITR 580 [RAJ] D. ACIT VS. A.N. ANNAMALAISWAMY 87 DTR 202 [CHENNAI ] E. NEERAT SINGHAL VS. ACIT 146 ITD 152 [DEL] F. CIT VS. MAHENDRA C. SHAH 299 ITR 305 G. CIT VS. KANHAIYA LAL 299 ITR 19 [RAJ] ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND MERIT IN ALL THE APPEALS AND O RDER TO DELETE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THESE CASES AS WELL. TO SUM UP, THE ENTIRE PENALTIES ARE DELETED. 17 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 12.03.2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K.SAINI) [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 12 TH MARCH, 2014 VL/- COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT BY ORDER THE CIT(A) THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR