Income Tax Officer-1(2), Range-1, Lucknow V. M/s Amazing Construction Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

ITA 547/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2536 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-10-2018
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 194C; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. N .S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 547/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(2) LUCKNOW V. M/S AMAZIN G CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 501, TULIP APARTMENT, ASHOK MARG, LUCKNOW T AN /PAN : AADCA1958M (APP ELLA NT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI C. K. SINGH, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING: 11 10 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 10 201 8 O R D E R PER P ARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, J.M : THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - 1, LUCKNOW DATED 28/2/2017 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE CIT (A) ERRED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE BY DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271( 1 )(C) OF THE' I.T. ACT BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INTRODUCED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.70,66, 000 / - AND IN SUPPORT OF SUCH OF CASH CREDIT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PERSON BEFORE THE AO, TH US COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDIT. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(C) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WAS MENTIONED IN ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 2 OF 9 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO IN THE FINAL FINDINGS OF THE PENALTY ORDER. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(C) BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND NOT FILED 2ND APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THUS, ACCEPTANCE OF GUILTY ITSELF LEADS TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 OF RS. 24,91,729 / - . 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED OF DOING SO ARISES WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF THE HON'BLE BENCH. 2 . THE FACTS OF CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF BUILDERS AND C ONSULTANTS IN THE FIELD OF REAL ESTATE. THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY E - FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 7.09.2011 SHOWING INCOME AT RS.5,08,784/ - . A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 ,73,23,78 0 / - ON 24.03.2014 AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. WHEN THE MATTER REACHED TO FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HE VIDE ORDER DATED 08. 03.2015 HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS. 92,81,349/ - AND ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,30,200/ - UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194C OF THE ACT AND A CCORDINGLY APPEAL EFFECT WAS GIVEN ON 08.05.2015. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, THEREFORE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1 )(C) WERE INITIATED AND THE A SSESSING O FFICER IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS . 2 4,91,730 / - . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE PENALTY ORDER , ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ARGUMENTS OF THE PAR TIES, DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 3 OF 9 5. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDING GIVEN BY AO IN PENALTY ORDER AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY APPELLANT DURING APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PART OF ADDITION MADE BY AO UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS OF EXPENSES AND IJSO THE INCOME ENHANCED ON THE DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER. I FOUND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TOGETHER DIFFERENT AND THE AO SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE A FRESH TO DECIDE THE PENALTY ISSU E IN PENALT Y PR OCEEDINGS BUT HE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT B RING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD WHICH COULD PROVE THAT ANY INCOME CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANT OR THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED SPECIFIC OBJECTION IN GROUND NO. 1 THAT THE AO HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN IMPOSING PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS WILLFULLY CONCEALED ITS INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER THE LD. AO HAS NOT MADE HIS MIND CLEAR WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION MENTIONED SUPRA AND CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS NOT SATISFIED HIMSELF WHETHER HE HAD CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(C ) O F THE I.T. ACT, THE AO SHOULD HAVE CLEARLY MENTION THAT WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HE HAS DEFAULTED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BUT AS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS MENTIONED IN PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER MENTIONED THE BOTH THE CHARGES FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. EVEN IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE AO DID NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE APPELLANT FOUND GUILTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED HIS INCOME. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. VS CIT (2006) 282 ITR 642 GUJ. THAT ...... AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED / FURNISHED ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 4 OF 9 IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE HE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY IS WRONG. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED L AW THAT IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO STATE WHETHER PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN APPELLANT CASE, THE AO HAS MENTIO NED BOTH THE CONDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION, IN PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1 )(C) AND ALSO IN PENALTY ORDER/ THEREFORE, I FOUND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT SURE WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE 'WRITTEN SUBMISSION, OF APPELLANT , CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO MENTIONED SUPRA AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLANT CASE, I HOLD THAT THE AO HAS WRON GLY LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE I.T. ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 24,91,729/ - AND SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 7. IN GROUND NO.2, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RAISED OBJECTION AND MENTIONED THA T HE HAD SURRENDERED THE INCOME BEFORE AO TO BUY P EACE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUEST AND BELIEF NOT TO BE PENALIZED IN THIS REGARD. 8. THE APPELLANT HAS DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DURING APPELLATE PRO C EEDINGS AND RELIED VARIOUS CASE LAWS MENTIONED SUPRA. THE APPELLANT CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN HIS WRITTEN SUBM ISSION THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE L.T. ACT WHICH WAS LEVIED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY CIT (APPEALS) AND ALSO ON THE ENH ANC ED I N COME ON THE BASIS OF CIT (APPEALS) - 1 , LUCKNOW'S DIRECTION GIVE N IN APPELLATE ORDER, THAT TOO WITHOUT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ENHANCED INCOME BY THE CIT (APPEALS). MOREOVER, THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME AND APPEAL EFFECT ON THIS ISSUE FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT BE CAUSE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) CAN BE ENHANCED THE INCOME OF APPELLANT BY PROVIDING PROPER ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 5 OF 9 OPPORTUNITY BEING HEARD. BUT IN APPELLANT CASE, THE AO HAS ENHANCED ASSESSEE'S INCOME WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT OF THE CIT'S (APPEAL S) ORDER AND THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NO T MADE ANY ENHANCEMENT BY PASSING THE ORDER FOR ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, I FOUND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON SUCH ENHANCED INCOME CANNOT BE SAID PROPER AND JUSTIFIED IN THE EYE OF LAW. FURTHER, AS MENTIONED BY APPELLANT THAT THE AO HAS ALSO INCLUDED THE ADDITION MADE BY AO WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(APPEALS) ON WHICH NO SATISFACTION FOR LEVY OF PENALT Y WAS RECORDED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, ON SUCH INCOME THE PENALTY LEVIED IS ALSO AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT, FURTHER, I FOUND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE ALSO BASED ON ESTIMATION MADE BY CIT(APPEALS) AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY AO. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND PART OF ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED THAT TOO ON ESTIM ATION BASIS. THE' APPELLANT DID NOT PREFER APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) TO BUY PEACE AND TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION, WHICH COULD NOT LEAD AUTOMATICAL LY TO LEVY THE PENALTY U/S 2 71(1 )(C) OF TH E IT. ACT. THE AO HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) ON 'THE SOLE BASIS OF THE CIT'S(APPEALS) ORDER AND NO FURTHER VERIFICATION / EXAMINATION WAS MADE BY AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS . AS HELD BY HON'BLE JHARKAHND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS ASEEM KUMAR AGARWAL (2005) REPORTED IN 275 ITR 48 ( JHARKHAND) ' NO PENALTY UNLESS THERE IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT ON PART OF ASSESSEE . MERE OMISSION ON PART OF ASSESSEE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT AND IF NO SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE ARE AVAILABLE TO P ROVE DELIBERATE ATTEMPT, NO PENALTY LIES.' 9. THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ANY INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN GENUINE AND BONA - FIDE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS DISALLOWED THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U /S 271(1 )(C) CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED . THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETRO ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 6 OF 9 PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS HELD THAT '....WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ITS RETURN WAS FOUND BE INCORRECT OR FALSE. SUCH NOT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING PENALTY U/S 271( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS.' THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS FURTHER STATED: '..... WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPE NDITURE AS - WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT 'WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OP INION, ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE, THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CL AIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESS EE WILL INVITE PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C ). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTEN DMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.' SIMILARLY, THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BURMAH - SHELL OIL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION CO. OF INDIA LTD. V. ITO , 112 ITR 592 HAS HELD THAT THE REJECTION OF THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SHIVLAL DESAI & SONS, (1978) 114 ITR 388 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES IN THE ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 7 OF 9 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WILL NOT BRING IN ITS WAKE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. AJAIB SINGH & CO., 170 CTR 489 HAS HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISALLOWED IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED IN CORRECT PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME. 6. FURTHER, IN RECENT DECISION GIVEN BY HON'BLE IT AT, LUCKNOW, A BENCH, LUCKNOW IN ITA NO. 735/LKW/2014 IN CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S RAM PALTAN JAISWAL & JDTHERS HAS HELD THAT: - WE H AVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF LD. DR OF THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT AS PER FACTS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2 OF HIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME, DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 68,160/ - AND THE ASSESSEE IS A COUNTRY LIQUOR CONTRAC TOR. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,49,840/ - AND THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE ALLOWED PART RELIEF. THE DEPARTMENT FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND RESTORED THE MATER BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH DECISION AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 TO 43C OF THE ACT AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF A. SANYASI RAO & OTHERS' REPORTED IN. 219 ITR 330. THE AO COMPLETED TH E ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.2004 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 20,75,195/ - . WHILE DOING SO, THE AO COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE SALES AT 2.5 TIME OF BID MONEY/LICENSE FEE AND APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 4% INSTEAD OF 2.75% APPLIED I N ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND WHEN SECOND APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND RESTORED TL \ E MATER BACK AGAIN TO THE FILE OF, THE AO. THE A O COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 20,75,195/ - VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2008 BY OBSERVING THAT IN ABSENCE OF SALE RATES ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 8 OF 9 FIXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT IN RESPECT OF COUNTRY LIQUOR, THE FINDINGS OF THE AGRA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOVI ND PRASAD KRISHNA KUMAR CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT CASE. AS PER THIS ORDER ALSO, THE AO AGAIN COMPUTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTIMATING THE SALES AT 2.5 TIME OF BID MONEY/LICENSE MONEY AFTER APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 4%. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHATEVER INCOME IS ULTIMATELY ASSESSED BY THE AO IS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE OF SALE AS WELL AS APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE OF 4%. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER FOR SUCH ADDITION BY WAY OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME, PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED OR NOT. LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED T HE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RAJ BAMS SINGH REPORTED IN 276 ITR 351(A11.) AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ARJUN PRASAD AJIT KUMAR REPORTED IN 214 CTR 355(A11.) WHERE IT WAS HELD MAT ON ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE INCOME, PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE INCOME ASSESSED IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SHOWING THAT IT IS A POSIT IVE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY IN. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF L D. CJT(A). IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED.' IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS IGNORED ALL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. I FOUND MUCH FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED IN P&L ACCOUNT BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT EXPENSES ARE GENUINE AND BONA - FIDE. THE AO HAS DISBELIEVED IN THE ACCURACY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS . MERELY, BECAUSE CERTAIN AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY DISALLOWING EXPENSES, SUCH DISALLOWANCES/INCOME WOULD NOT BECOME HIS CONCEALED INCOME. ITA NO.547/LKW/2017 PAGE 9 OF 9 10. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF APPELLANT CASE AND DECISION GIVEN BY HON'BLE ITAT BENCH, LUCKNOW AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DEC ISION MENTIONED SUPRA, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT OF RS. 24,91,729/ - AND SAME LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVY PENALT Y U/S 271(1 )(C) OF RS. 24,91,729/ - . HENCE, PENALTY IMPOSE D BY THE AO U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT IS, THEREFORE, CANCELLED. GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT. 3 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY LEVI ED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE UP ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND BY PASSING A WELL REASONED ORDER. THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE COULD NOT CITE ANY CONTRARY DECISION IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. HENCE, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WH ICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 4 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 / 10 / 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - [ N .S. SAINI ] [PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST OCTO BER , 2 01 8 JJ: 2210 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR