M/s Shamil Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 548/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4750 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-01-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.547 & 548/LKW/2014 (BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 18.11.1998) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE V KANPUR VS. M/S SHAMIL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 39-B, DADA NAGAR, KANPUR PAN AAACZ 0418 L (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI RAKESH GARG, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI A . K. SINGH, CIT, DR RESPONDENT BY 05 / 01 /201 6 DATE OF HEARING 04/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR. SINCE THESE APPEALS WE RE HEARD TOGETHER, THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. HOWEVER, WE PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. ITA NO.548/LKW/2014 2. THROUGH THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), DISPOSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT). 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 07.07. 2006 IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHEREBY THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE 2 ADDITION OF RS.6,48,766/-. BUT THE GROSS PROFIT RAT E WAS ESTIMATED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT 13% ON THE ENTIRE SALES . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE WORD ENTIRE SHOULD ONLY BE READ WITH RESPECT TO THE SALES ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 15% ONLY AND NOT TO THOSE SALES ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PRO FIT RATE AT 5.5%. IT HAS NO RELATION TO THE TOTAL SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. B UT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS COM PUTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 13% ON THE ENTIRE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN ST THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE AC T, POINTING OUT THE ERROR COMMITTED IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE APPLICATION WAS ALSO DISMISSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A) BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM AS THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT TH E RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS REITERATED ITS CONTENTIONS. IT HAS ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL APPEARING AT PAGE NOS. 21 TO 25 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) PASSED IN FIRST ROUND. COPIES OF WHICH ARE AVAILABL E ON PAGES 10 TO 20 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS ORDER, THE CIT (A) HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 5.5% TO THE SALE OF RS.32,27,520/- A ND FOR THE BALANCE SALES OF RS.35,26,322/-, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS ESTIMATED AT 15%. BESIDES THE CIT(A) HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,48,766/-TO THE GROSS PROFIT SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE SHOULD BE AT 13% ON THE ENTIRE SALES WHICH MEANS SALES ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT RATE WAS ESTIMATED AT 15% BY THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL NEVER MEANT TO INCREASE THE GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THOSE SALES ON WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 5.5%. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HA VE GIVEN PROPER EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 5.5% TO THE SALE OF 3 RS.32,27,520/- AND AT 13% TO THE REMAINING SALES OF RS.35,26,322/- BUT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED THE GROSS PROFIT RAT E AT 13% TO THE ENTIRE SALES. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED ITS INTENTION IN ITS ORDER DATED 07.07.20 06 AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 5.5% ON SALES OF RS.32,27,520/- AND AT 13% ON SALES OF RS.35,26,322/-. OTHERWISE THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD RESULT INTO THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME EVEN ESTIMATE D BY THE CIT(A). 5. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS CONTENDED THAT SCOP E OF SECTION 154 IS VERY LIMITED AND ONLY THOSE ERRORS CAN BE RECTIFIED, WHI CH ARE ARITHMETICAL OR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT UNDER THE GARB OF SECTION 154, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT THE REVIEW OF THE ORDER BY INTERPRE TING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT U/S 154 OF THE ACT O NLY APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER CAN BE RECTIFIED AND WHEN ANY ISSUE REQUIRES A LONG DRAWN PROCESS, IT CANNOT BE ADJUDICATED U/S 154 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY RAISED IN THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL DEALT WITH THE ISSUE I N PARA 6 TO 8 OF ITS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE SAME AS U NDER: IN GROUND NOS. 2 TO 5, THE DISPUTE IS WHETHER SALE S ARE TO BE ADDED OR GROSS PROFIT IS TO BE ADDED AND IF IT IS THE LATTER , THEN WHAT SHOULD BE THE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT, TO BE ADOPTED. AS MENTION ED IN THE FACTS WHILE DEALING WITH THE FIRST GROUND ABOVE, IT WAS OBSERVE D THAT THE STOCKS IN RESPECT OF SEVERAL ITEMS WERE FOUND TO BE SHORT AS AGAINST THAT RECORDED M THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY WORTHWHILE EXPLANATION, THE AO INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN MAKING PRODUCTION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS AND ALSO EFFECTING SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. HE DETERMINED SU CH UNACCOUNTED SALE AT RS.6,48,766/-AND AFTER ADOPTING THE GROSS P ROFIT RATE OF 15 %, ADDED THE PROFIT OF RS. 97,315/- TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSES. 4 THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE WORKING ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER WHICH ONLY PROFIT WAS ADDED. HIS REA SONING WAS THAT SINCE THE PURCHASES FOR THE STOCK IN QUESTION HAD A LREADY BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE CORRECT METHO D WOULD BE TO ADD THE ENTIRE FIGURE OF SALES TO THE GROSS SALES OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THEN WORK OUT THE PROFIT AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR ALL THE EX PENSES THAT HAVE BEEN ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 7. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL WAS TH AT ONLY PROFIT SHOULD BE ADDED AS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND NOT THE SALES AS WAS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. D R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 8. A QUERY WAS POSED TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL AS TO W HETHER THE ALLEGED SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS IF THEY ARE NOT SAL ES, ARE THEY IN ANY WAY ADJUSTED IN THE CLOSING STOCK OR NOT. THE REPLY OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL WAS THAT THIS WAS DIFFICULT TO PROVE. HE AL SO ADMITTED THE PURCHASES AS FOUND BY THE CIT(A) WERE RECORDED IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE AGREE WITH THE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A) AND DO NOT INTERFERE WITH THE DIRECTI ON GIVEN BY HIM TO THE AO . HOWEVER, THE RATE OF GROSS PROFIT AT 15 % IS QUITE HIGH. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT AT 13.5 %. IT WOULD BE FAIR TO ADOPT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 13 % ON THE ENTIRE SALES FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFIT. 7. FROM THE READING OF AFORESAID PARAS OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, IT IS NOT CLEAR IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A FINDING. WHETHER THIS FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS ON AN ISSUE AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IT IS A FINDING WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTIRE SALES. IN ORDER TO RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY, WE CALLED FOR RECORD IN APPEAL NO.655/LUC/2001 IN WHIC H THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF T HE RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFI T ON THE ENTIRE SALES AND FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUNDS NO.2 TO 5 RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN THE AFORES AID FINDING: 2. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KANPUR HAS ER RED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PLEA QF ASSESSEE RELATING TO APPLICATION OF GROSS PROFIT ON THE SHORTAGE ON STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS.6,48,766.00. 3. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR HAS ERRED 5 IN DIRECTING THE LD. A. O. TO RECOMPUTE THE PROFIT BY INCORPORATING THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK OF RS. 648766.00 IN THE BOOKS OP ACCOUNT. 4. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR HAS E RRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T HIS SHORTAGE OF STOCK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AND VIEWED FRO M THE ANGLE THAT HUGE QUANTUM OF SALES HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND NO SEPARATE CONSIDERATI ON OF THE SAME SHOULD BE GIVEN. 5. BECAUSE ON FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - I, KANPUR HAS E RRED IN APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.5% AND 15% WHI CH IS ON VERY HIGHER SIDE WITHOUT CONSIDSERATION THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 8. FROM CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RA ISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT ONLY DISPUTED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,48,766/- BUT ALSO APPLYING GROSS P ROFIT RATE AT 5.5% AND 15% ON DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF SALES. WHILE ADJUDICATING THESE GROUNDS, THE TRIBUNAL WAS QUITE CONSCIOUS WITH THE FACTS THAT IT HAS TO GIVE A FINDING ON THE POINT OF ADDITION OF RS.6,48,766/- AND THE GROSS PROFIT RATE TO BE AP PLIED ON THE ENTIRE SALES. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADOPTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 13% ON THE ENTIRE SALES FOR WORKING OUT THE PROFIT WHILE REDUCING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE FROM 15 % APPLIED BY THE CIT(A) TO 13%, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE OTHER FACTOR OF APPLICATION OF GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.5% TO THE SALE OF RS.32,27,520/-. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ONLY REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE FROM 15% TO 13% WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF RS.35,26,322/-. THUS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE WORD ENTIRE SALES USED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN P ARA 8, MEANS THE ENTIRE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT WOULD NOT BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY SALE OF RS.35,26,322/- AS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS TO BE ALLOWED, IT WOUL D AMOUNT TO ENHANCEMENT OF 6 INCOME BUT WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS ARGUMEN T AS THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING IN THIS REGARD. MOREOVER, THE TRI BUNAL HAS PASSED AN ORDER ON 07.07.2006. IF ANY ERROR WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HE COULD HAVE APPROACHED THE TRIBUNAL FOR RECTIFICATION OF HIS ORDER BY POINTING OUT THAT THIS ORDER RESULTED INTO ENHANCEM ENT OF INCOME BUT HE HAS NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY AND NOW THE RECTIFICATION I N THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT POSSIBLE AS IT HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY AND IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. ACC ORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAVING DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. ITA NO. 547/LKW/2014 11. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 158BFA OF THE ACT . 12. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. FOR THE S AKE OF REFERENCE, WE EXTRACT THE GROUND OF APPEAL AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPE AL AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING PROPER EF FECT TO APPEAL ORDERS AND WRONGLY APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 13% ON UNDISCLOSED SALES OF BOTH YARN AND THREAD RESULTING INTO HIGHER IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 2. THAT THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN NOT POPERLY FOLLOWIN G THE DIRECTIONS / NOT GIVING PROPER EFFECT TO THE DECISION O F APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. 3. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OF RS. 441189.00 U/ S 158 BFA (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS HARSH, NOT SUPPOR TED BY LAW AND FACTS AND ACCORDINGLY PROPER RELIEF DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4. BECAUSE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A)-I, KANPUR HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE APPELLANT. 5. BECAUSE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(AH KANPUR WITHOUT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO 7 THE APPELLANT AS SUSTAINED FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO INTRODUCE, WIT HRAW OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL AS AND WHEN NEED OF DOING SO ARISES WITH THE KIND CONSENT YOUR HONOUR. 12.1 THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- BECAUSE OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL ON WRONG NOTION THAT THE MISTAKE MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE TRIBU NAL READ ALONGWITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS MISTAKE IN APPLICATION OF MIND BEING MISTAKE NOT APPARENT AND NOT RECTIFICABLE U/S 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COMPLETE DETAIL S BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT IT WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THEY HAVE MADE THE ADDITION. LATER ON, THE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED B EFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAVI NG ACCEPTED THE SOME OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE MATTER WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO ESTIMATED THE GR OSS PROFIT RATE ON THE TOTAL SALE. THE EFFECT OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER RESULTING INTO THE ADDITION. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE OF THE CONCEALMENT OF ANY I NCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING. IT WAS ONLY A QUESTION OF ESTIMA TION AND EVEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT CONCURRENT ON THE ESTIMATION OF GR OSS PROFIT RATE. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT APPROVED BY THE TRI BUNAL THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALE D THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. 14. LD. DR HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) . 15. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THERE IS NO DIRECT EVIDENCE ON THE 8 BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HA S CONCEALED THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE ADDITIONS ARE SUSTAINED ON T HE BASIS OF ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER/CIT(A) OR THE TRIBUNAL. TH OUGH SOME OF THE ESTIMATION ARE CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS A CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CHARG EABLE TO TAX IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. WE TH EREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) A ND DELETE THE PENALTY. 16. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 547/LKW/2014 IS ALLOWED AND THE ITA NO. 548/LKW.2014 IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2016 AKS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR