ITO, Ward 3(2), Dhule V. Ravindra Anandrao Tirmale, Shahada

ITA 581/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 58124514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE: SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 581 / P N/ 20 1 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), DH ULE VS. RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, PROP. SIDDHI VINAYAK TRANSPORT, SHOP NO. 2, VADNERE SHOPPING, DONDAICHA ROAD, SHAHADA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ADLPT1859L APPELLANT BY: SMT. S. PRAVEENA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S UNIL PATHAK DATE OF HEA RING : 0 3 - 07 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 - 0 7 - 2014 ORDER PER R.S . PADVEKAR , JM : - THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I, NASHIK DATED 17 - 12 - 2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 . THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS IN APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AT RS.4,87,954/ - . 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF THE LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS.15,94,390/ - AND ALSO REPLIED TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION ON SUNDRY CREDITORS THAT THESE ARE NO SUNDRY CREDITORS IN THE LINE OF SUCH BUSINESS. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF AT RS.15,94,390/ - AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATION AND NOT ON AGREED BASIS. 2 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA 2. T HE FACTS WHICH ARE REVEALED FROM THE RECORD AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HE IS SUPPLIER OF TRUCKS ON CONTRACT BASIS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,55,610/ - . THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT. ONE OF THE MAJOR ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN RESPECT OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY TOWARDS FREIGHT CHARGES PAYABLE OF RS.15 ,94,390/ - . AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE OUTSTANDING FREIGHT CHARGES PAYABLE WERE SHOWN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.15,94,390/ - WITHOUT ANY DETAILS TO WHOM SAME WERE PAYABLE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. AS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE THE LIST OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENT IS TO BE MADE AND ALSO STATED IN WRITING THAT NO SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE IN HIS LINE OF BUSINESS. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT ED THAT DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THE NAME AND DETAILS OF AMOUNT PAYABLE ARE PROVIDED WITH RECEIPT OF LORRY OF EACH PERSON. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDE D THE LIST OF PERSONS IN RESPECT OF THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.15,94,390/ - WHICH WAS SHOWN OUTSTANDING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROVIDED ACCOUNT EXTRACTS AS ON 01 - 04 - 2008 AND OUTSTANDING AMOUNT S W ERE PAID IN F.Y. 2008 - 09 I.E. SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT ACCOUNT EXTRACT IS SUPPORTED WITH LORRY RECEIPT S DULY ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE CONSIGNER WITH WEIGHT AND OTHER DETAILS INCLUD ING NAME OF THE LORRY OWNER TO WHOM THE PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPEATEDLY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE IN THE ASSESSEE S LINE OF BUSINESS. AFTER ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.15,94,390/ - . 3 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA 4. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE OTHER TWO SMALL ADDITIONS WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF BANK INTEREST AND INTEREST ON INCOME - TAX RETURN OF RS.10,000/ - AND 10,490/ - RESPECTIVELY EACH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7,173/ - IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER INCOME CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALLY DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 17,77,663/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS ON THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.4,87,954/ - VIDE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 26 - 06 - 2011. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY ARE AS UNDER: 4/ - I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE CASE RECORD AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSE E AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSES CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) ON VERIFICATION OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT IT IS SEEN THAT NEITHER, AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX REFUND CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS NOR, AMOUNT OF INTEREST THEREON CREDITED. IN REPLY TO QUESTIONNAIRE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED TO EARN THIS TYPE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF BANKS ACCOUNTS IT WAS NOTICED THAT, A CHEQUE ISSUED BY THE I.T. DEPTT. HAD BEEN SEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. AFTER VERIFICATIO N OF CORRECTNESS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED REFUND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WITH INTEREST THEREON AS PER THE RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, WHICH ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO OFFER FOR TAXATION. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR NOT ONLY THE INTEREST AMOUNT BUT TOTAL REFUND AMOUNT, WHICH SHOWS NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE HENCE, ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. B) AS REGARD THE LORRY CHARGES PAYABLE, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONLY SUBMITTED LORR Y RECEIPTS WHEREIN THE NAME ADDRESSES OF THE CONSIGNOR AND CONSIGNEE REFLECTED WITH WEIGHT.AND NATURE OF GOODS, HOWEVER THERE WERE NO UTTERANCE ABOUT FREIGHT, WHETHER IT WAS PAID OR WAS TO BE PAID. AS SUCH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THERE WERE NOT A SINGLE EN TRY FOUND WHEREIN IT WAS SEEN CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT IS PAYABLE TO SUCH TRANSPORTER. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THAT AS SOON AS THE LORRY UPLOADED, THE ASSESSEE USED TO PAY CHEQUE, WHICH WAS 'ENCASHED IMMEDIATELY BY THE PERSON WITH LORRY BY BEARER CHEQUE. AS PER BANK 4 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA ACCOUNTS AND AS PER RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN PRACTICE TO PAY LORRY FREIGHT ON SAME DAY. AS PER RECORD, WHETHER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR AS PER BANK ACCOUNTS AND AS PER THE RECEI PTS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT SUPPORTED TO THE ASSESSEE CONTENTION. AS SUCH, LAPSE OF 3 YEARS PERIOD TO SUBMIT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DETAILED ADDRESS ON RECEIPTS OF THE TRUCK OWNERS, HOW COULD HE UNABLE TO PRODU CE THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRACTICE TO OBTAIN PAN WITH 15 - 1 FORM FOR NOT TO DEDUCT TAX ON SUB - CONTRACT PAYMENTS HENCE, HE HAS DETAILS OF TRUCK OWNERS. THE EXTRACTS OF ACCOUNTS (NEXT YEAR I.E. F.Y. 2008 - 09 RELEVANT TO A.Y.2009 - 10) OF THE PERSONS SUBMITTED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS STATING THAT THE DETAILS OF NAME OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM FREIGHT CHARGES WERE PAYABLE. WHICH HAD BEEN NEITHER, RELATED WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR, TALLIED WITH ANY OF THE BILLS HAVING SAME AMOUNT WITH EXTRA CTS. C) THE DECISIONS OF THE CASE LAWS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 6/ - IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND TH EREBY CONCEALED THE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THIS IS FIT CASE FOR LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 5. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE ISS UE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY PARTLY. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR PARTLY DELET ING THE PENALTY BY GIVING MAJOR RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 4.3.1 ON THESE GIVEN FACTS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE PENALTY U/ S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN A NUMBER OF JURISDICTIONAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT EVEN WHEN AN ESTIMATED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT OR CONTESTED IN APPEAL AND CONFIRMED THEREIN EVEN THEN PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271( 1 )(C) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED. IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. K.R. CHINNIKRISHNA CHETTY (246 ITR 121) (MAD.), IN THE CASE OF CIT V. APSARA TALKIES (155 ITR 303) (MAD.) AND IN THE CASE OF T.P.K. RAMALINGAM V . CIT (211 ITR 520) (MAD.) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. PACHAMUTHU 5 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA (2007) 295 ITR 0502 THAT ON AN ESTIMATED ADDITION CONFIRMED IN APPEAL, PENALTY U/S. 271( 1 )(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. IN THE CASE OF CIT V. BHOJ RAJ & CO. (247 ITR 696), THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR ARRIVING A FINDING OF CONCEALMENT MERELY ON NON - ACCEPTANCE OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND THERE IS NO DELIBERATE SUPPRESSION OF INCOME AND THE PENALTY U/S.271(L)(C) WAS DELETED. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT (249 ITR 125) HAS HELD THAT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TWO FACTORS MUST COEXIST - (I) THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL OR CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE A MOUNT DOES REPRESENT THE APPELLANT'S INCOME. IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME AND (II) THE CIRCUMSTANCES MUST SHOW THAT THERE WAS AMIMUS I.E. CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT. EXPLANATION (1) OF SECTION U/S. 271( 1 )(C) DOES NOT MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE THAT THE AMOUNT ASSESSED WAS IN FACT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN THAT YEAR. NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE EQUALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE AMOUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE CONCEALED INCOME WITH THE HYPOTHESIS THAT IT DOES. IF THE APPELLANT GIVES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS UNPROVED BUT NOT DISPROVED I.E. IT IS NOT ACCEPTED THAT CI RCUMSTANCES DO NOT LEAD TO THE REASONABLE AND POSITIVE INFERENCE THAT THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS FALSE. ABSENCE OF PROOF ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE 'EQUATED WITH FRAUD OR WILLFUL DEFAULT TO WARRANT PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4.3.2 AS MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THE ADDITION ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED WAS ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY TRADE CREDITORS WHO ARE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WERE PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS PLAUSIBLE A ND BONAFIDE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ON THE ADDITION OF RS.15,94,390/ - . THERE IS, THEREFORE , NO CASE FOR EITHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ADDITION OF RS.15,94,390/ - IS CANCELLED. 6 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA 4.4 PENALTY ON INTEREST ON REFUND OF INCOME TAX REFUND - RS.10 , 490/ - THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE REFUND AMOUNT OF RS.1,71,930/ - RECEIVED FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO IDS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES INTEREST OF RS.10,490/ - . INTEREST ON INCOME TAX REFUND IS WITHIN THE SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TAXPAYER AND HE GENERALLY TAKES KEEN INTEREST IN GETTING INTEREST ON REFUND WHEREVER ADMISSIBLE. THEREFORE, WHEN INTEREST ON SUCH INCOME TAX REFUND IS RECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO INCLUDE THE SAME IN HIS TOTAL INCOME, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DONE. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD THAT T HE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IS PETTY IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND HAS MADE HIMSELF LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OF RS.10,490/ - . THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT PENALTY ON THE INCOME OF RS.10,490/ - . THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS, THEREFORE, REDUCED, TO BE IMPOSED ONLY ON THE ADDITION OF RS.10,490/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE LD. DR ARGUES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE LIABILITY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET ARE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.15.94,390/ - TOWARDS LORRY CHARGES PAYABLE AND NO DETAILS OF LORRY OWNERS WERE AVAILABLE WITH HIM. HE ARGUES THAT IT WAS NOTICED DURING THE SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS THAT AS SOON AS THE LORRY UPLOADED, THE ASSESSEE USED TO PAY CHEQUE, WHICH WAS ENCASHED IMMEDIATELY BY THE PERSON WITH LORRY BY BEARER CHEQUE. HE ARGUES THAT IT IS THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE BANK ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE PAYING THE LORRY FREIGHT ON THE SAME DAY. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRACTICE TO OBTAIN PAN WITH 15 - I FORM FOR NOT DEDUCT ING TAX AT SOURCE. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER LEVYING THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF OTHER ADDITIONS NO SERIOUS ARGUMENT WAS MADE BY HIM I.E. THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/ - OF THE INCOME TAX REFUND. 7 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED T HE ADDITION THAT ITSELF IS NOT TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF THE LORRY OWNERS AND THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE AFTER 01 - 04 - 2008 BY THE CROSS CHEQUE AND THE SAME WAS DEMONSTRATED ALSO. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ADDITION IS A CONCLUSIVE PROOF TO LEVY PENALTY . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WAS REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL M ORE PARTICULARLY LEDGER EXTRACTS TO SHOW THAT THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY TOWARDS LORRY CHARGES HAS BEEN PAID IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCIAL YEAR. HE ARGUES THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON THAT WHEN THE BILLS ARE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PRINCIPLES THERE CAN BE THE DELAY IN PAYMENT OF THE LORRY CHARGES. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.10,000/ - HE SUBMITS THAT THE SAID ADDITION IS TOWARDS THE MISTAKE SHOWING THE INTEREST AND THERE IS NO DELIBERATE ACT TO SHOW THAT THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HE PLEADED F OR CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) MORE PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF DELETING THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS.15,94,390/ - WHICH WAS TOWARDS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE IS A TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR MANAGING TRUCKS ON THE CONTRACTS BASIS . IT APPEARS THAT SOME STATEMENT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN HIS LINE OF BUSINESS THERE IS NO OUTSTANDING LIABILITY BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LEDGER EXTRACTS GIVING THE DETAILS OF THE LORRY OWNERS TO WHOM THE AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE TURNOVER TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,11,71,456/ - AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PROFIT DECLARED ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE OUTSTANDING LIABILITY TOWARDS LORRY CHARGES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IN FACT THERE WAS 8 ITA NO. 581/PN/2013, RAVINDRA ANANDRAO TIRMALE, SHAHADA OUTSTANDING LIABILITY AND HENCE, EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE ADDIT ION BUT THE SAID ADDITION CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE PARTIES IN IMMEDIATE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR. IN OUR OPINION IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO LEVY THE PENALTY HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER MINOR ADDITIONS NO MUCH MORE ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 - 07 - 20 1 4 SD/ - SD/ - ( G.S. PANNU ) ( R.S. PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RK /PS PUNE , DATED : 21 ST JULY, 2014 COPY TO 1 ASSESSEE 2 DEPARTMENT 3 4 THE CIT(A) - I, NASHIK THE CIT - I , NASHIK 5 THE DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE