Sri Harjit Singh Sall, Kolkata V. ITO,WD-50(3), KOLKATA, Kolkata

ITA 576/KOL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4084 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDIPTO ADHYA
• Keywords: Salary income; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,D BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE : SHRI M.BALAGANESH,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 576/KOL/2016 A.Y: 2008-09 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL VS. I.T.O., WARD 50( 3), KOLKATA PAN: AKOPS6684E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPEARANCES BY: SHRI SUDIPTO ADHYA, ADVOCATE, AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT, SR.DR FOR THE REVENUE DATE OF HEARING : 08-11-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-12-2016 O R D E R SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM :- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11-01-2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(APPEALS)-15, KOLKATA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09, WHEREIN HE CONFIRMED THE PENALTY OF RS.5,04,710/- I MPOSED U/S. 271(1) ( C) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T(A) IS ARBITR ARY, ILLEGAL, EXCESSIVE, PERVERSE AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE P ENALTY WHEN NO SPECIFIC CHARGE OF EITHER CONCEALMENT OR SUBMISSIONS OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS WAS MADE. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PE NALTY UNDER SEC. 271(1)(C) WHEN THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT, THE FACTS AND FIGURE S WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION WERE DULY DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS. 4. FOR THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E PENALTY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS NO T ACCEPTED EVEN THOUGH THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED. ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 2 5. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED IS UNJUSTIFIED, NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IS L IABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 6. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T(A) BE MODIFI ED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN RELIEF PRAYED FOR. 7. FOR THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY GROUND BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. GOING BY THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ONLY ISSUE REMAI NS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE CIT-A RIGHT IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES HIS INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS, AGRICULTU RE AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME TH ROUGH ON LINE AND UNDER SCRUTINY NOTICE U/S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED. IN RE SPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILS OF INCOME OF SALARY, BUS INESS, LOSS FROM PROPERTY, INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGRICULTURE . DURING VERIFICATION OF SUCH DOCUMENTS THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CO-OWNER OF FIVE (5) BIGHAS OF LAND. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RS. 15,40,370/- AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN SUPPORT OF W HICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, P URCHASE BILLS AND DOCUMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE EXPENSES AMOUNT RE CEIVED THEREON. ACCORDING TO AO, IT IS NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE TO EARN SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON HOLDING SUCH SMALL AGRICULTURE LAND AND FOR NON-SUBMISSION OF EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF AG RICULTURE PRODUCTS IN THE MANDI OR MARKET PLACE, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT O F RS.15,40,370/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED AN ORDE R U/SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE AT RS.16 ,54,870/- ON 29-12- 2010. ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 3 5. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S 271 OF THE ACT ON 28-12-2010. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.5,04,710/ -. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE TRIBUNAL ON THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE QUANTUM ADDITION RESTRICTED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT RS.10,00, 000/- AND TREATED THE BALANCE OF RS.5,40,370/- BEING (RS. 15,40,370 - RS. 10,00,000/-) AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. AS AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE AO IN IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE CHA LLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT THE AO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE AGRICULT URAL LAND AND FAILED TO STRIKE OFF THE IRRELEVANT PART IN NOTICE U/SECTION 274 AND RELIED ON THE DECISIONS SPECIFICALLY TO SAY THE INITIATION OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON 08/01/2006 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND CONTENDED INTER-ALIA AS UNDER:- A. THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF LAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A CCEPTED BY THE AO, HENCE HE SHOULD HAVE ALSO ACCEPTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED OUT OF IT. B. THERE IS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE MENTIONED IN THE SHO WCAUSE NOTICE FOR PENALTY DATED 29/12/2010 ISSUED U/S 274 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS NOT STRUCK OU T THE IRRELEVANT PART. C. ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS, THE PENALTY ORDER IS LEGAL AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 1. HON'BLE KOLKATA ITAT, ITA NO. 98/KOL/2013 SRI BI RENDRA ATH SAHA VS. DC1T 2. HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT, CIT VS MANU ENG. WORK S 122 ITR 306. 3. HON'B1E KARNATAKA HIGH COURT MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 4. KOLKATA ITAT C BENCH, GHOSH JEWELLERY IN ITA NO. 2012/KOLL2006 DT. 0811 0/20 15 7. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE AGRICU LTURE INCOME AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSES SEES CASE WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 4 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E AR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT I AM NOT CONVINCED. THE CASE LAWS RELI ED UPON BY HIM ARE ALSO NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANCE CASE. THE AO HAS MEN TIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE RE GARDING EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS CLAIMED IN HIS RETURN. OWNER SHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING AGRICULTU RE INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILLS AND DOCUMENTS RE GARDING EXPENSES INCURRED. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED DURING TH E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE WITH HIM . HENCE, THE AO HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AND FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271 (I)(C) WAS INITIATED. IT IS A FACT THAT THE COPY OF PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 DID NOT STRIKE OUT IRRELEVANT PORTION. HOWEVER, THE JUDGMEN T OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GIN NING FACTORY REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565 ENVISAGES THAT THE EXISTENCE OF CONDITI ONS STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)( C) SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS MENTIONED ABOVE THIS FACT IS CLEARLY BORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, THE GROUND THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS INITI ATED ON ONE ACCOUNT AND LEVIED ON ANOTHER ACCOUNT IS NOT CORRECT. VARIOUS J UDGMENTS CITED BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SPECIFIC FINDI NG REGARD EXISTENCE OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 (1)( C) SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE EITHER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR THE PENALTY NOTICE WHICH WO ULD CONSTITUTE THE BASIS OF INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE EXPLANAT ION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS HELD TO BE NOT BONA FIDE AND ACCEPTABLE HAS BEEN MENTIONED CLEARLY IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER ITSELF. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AO GAVE A FRESH OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBMITTING FRESH EXPLANATIONS/EVIDENCES BUT THERE W AS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AR HAS ALSO MENTIONED THA T WHILE CALCULATING THE PENALTY AMOUNT AT THE END OF THE PENALTY ORDER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS UNDER:- 'TAX ON TOTAL INCOME (INCLUDING THE CONCEALED INCOM E OF RS. 5,04,707/- INCOME OF RS.15, 40, 370/- ON WHICH PENA LTY IS APPLICABLE.' THUS. THE AR ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD INITIATED TILE PENALTY ON ONE GROUND I.E. 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME' AND LEVIED THE PENALTY ON ANOTHER GROUND I.E. 'CONCEALMENT' WHICH IS LEGALLY NOT CORRECT. THIS CONTENTION OF THE AR CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS CLEARLY WRITTEN IN THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE PENALTY ORDER THAT PENALTY IS LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS, THE AR IS T RYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SMALL TECHNICAL THINGS WHICH ARE NOT PERMISSIBLE UN DER THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE PENALT Y WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME BY THE A O AND IS THUS CONFIRMED. 8. AGGRIEVED BY SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT-A, NOW THE AS SESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND CONTENDED THAT THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON BOTH T HE CHARGES AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.274 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR ARGUED ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 5 THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE OF OFFENCE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E WHETHER HE HAS CONCEALED THE IN COME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND RELIED ON THE SAME DECISIONS AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT-A AND PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 2 TO 61 IN PAPER BOOK . THE LD.AR REFERRED PAGE NOS-62, 63 OF THE PAPER BOOK REGARDING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, A BEN CH, KOLKATA DATED 04-05-2016 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 1237/K OL/2013 FOR THE AY 2008-09. HE ARGUED THAT THE TRIBUNAL RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.10,00,000/- ON ESTIMATION AND PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION AND RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CA SES OF HARI GOPAL REPORTED IN 258 ITR 85 (P&H), RAVAIL SINGH REPORTED IN 254 ITR 191 (P&H) AND SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS LTD REPORTED IN 3 03 ITR 53 (P&H) FOR SUCH PROPOSITION AND PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 9. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.DR SUBMITS THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EXPLANATION EITHER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS OR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. HEARD BOTH AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD.AR ADVANCED TWO FOLD ARGUMENTS BEFORE U S I.E ONE PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA REGARDING THE DEFECTIVE NOTICE AND TWO THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON ESTIMATED ADDITION AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS SUPRA. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS. 10 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSEES APPE AL FILED AGAINST U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOTICED FROM SUCH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME A T RS.15,40,370/- IS EXCESSIVE AND, THEREFORE, RESTRICTED TO RS.10,00,00 0/-. WITH REGARD TO CONTENTION OF CHARGING AND IMPOSING OF PENALTY AS M ENTIONED IN THE SAID ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 6 NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 OF THE ACT THE, FACT REMAINS ADMITTED THAT THE AO TICKED ONLY THE PORTION OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF DECISION AS LAID DO WN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY REPORTED IN 359 ITR 565(KAR) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO T HE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. 11. WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON INCOME BASED ON ESTIMATION, THE LD. AR REFERRED TO THE THREE DECISIONS SUPRA AND WE MAY EXAMINE THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SAN GRUR VANASPATI MILLS LTD REPORTED IN 303 ITR 53 (P&H). THE FACTS T HEREIN, THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE YIELD AND WORKED OUT THE ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION, ON THIS ESTIMATED ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION AND APPLIED AVERAGE SALE RATE AND WORKED OUT THE ADDITIONAL SALE AT RS. 15,50,306 WHICH WAS ROUNDED OFF TO RS. 15,50,000 AND ADDED TO THE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO ESTIMATED THE YIELD ON THE BASIS OF PRECEDING YEAR AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD BEEN SU STAINED. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE SHOULD BE CONCLUSIVE EVI DENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY AND T HE RELEVANT PORTION OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 6. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS BASED UPON TWO DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. RAVAIL SINGH & CO. (2002) 173 CTR (P&H) 429 : (2002) 254 I TR 191 (P&H) AND HARIGOPAL SINGH VS. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (P&H) 580 : (2002) 258 ITR 85 (P &H). IN BOTH THESE DECISIONS, THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT CL. (C) OF S. 271(1) OF THE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PROVISIO NS OF S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO CASES WHERE THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND ADDITIONS ARE MADE THEREIN. IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN T HE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY CONCRETE EVID ENCE OF CONCEALMENT, THEN THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE. THE SIMILAR VIEW WAS ALSO TAKEN B Y THIS COURT IN CIT VS. DHILLON RICE MILLS (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H), WHERE THE ADDITION WAS MA DE BY THE AO BY ESTIMATING THE YIELD OF SUPER PHAK AS WELL AS OF CHHILKA AND ALSO THE PR ICE OF CHHILKA, THAT ADDITION WAS REDUCED BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO W AS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS DISMISSED BY THIS COURT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 7 ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE OF THE YIELD OF PHAK AND CHHILKA AND AN ESTIMATE OF THE PRICE AND THAT THE ESTIMATE WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO LE AD TO PENALTY. 7. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW IS ARISING FROM THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. DISMISSED 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE AO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION FOR NOT PRODUCING THE RELEVANT EV IDENCE SHOWING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE IN THE MAND I AND THE CIT-A CONFIRMED THE SAME OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E DID NOT PRODUCE ANYTHING BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CL AIM AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT INCOME DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD A GRICULTURE IS EXCESSIVE AND DETERMINED THE SAME BY RESTRICTING TO RS.10,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE INCOME ON AGRICULTUR E DETERMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATI ON WAS BECOME FINAL ON WHICH THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY. THERE FORE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ES TIMATION. THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT IN THE DECISION SUPRA HELD THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTIE S IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION IS BAD. WE ARE OF THE OPINI ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE DECISIONS SUPRA ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND AND THEREFORE, THE PRINCI PLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT SUPRA IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE ON HAND. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE LAW LAID DOWN ABOV E, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY OF RS.5,04,710/-IMPOSED BY THE AO AND A S CONFIRMED BY THE CIT-A. THUS, THE GROUNDS AS DISCUS SED ABOVE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 8 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DECEMBER,2016 SD/- SD/- M.BALAGANESH S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 21/12/ 2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL C B-35 SALT LAKE KOLKATA-700064. 2 THE RESPONDENT/DEPARTMENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 50(3), UTTARPAN COMPLEX, ULTADANGA, MANIKTALA CIVIC CENTRE, KOLKATA-700054. 3 4. / THE CIT(A) THE CIT 5 . DR, KOLKATA BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . **PP/SPS TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, A SSTT REGISTRAR ITA NO. 576/KOL/16 SRI HARJIT SINGH SALL 9