M/s Time Bound Contracts Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5914/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9235 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 274; 27; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5909/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 AND ITA NO. 5914/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 AND ITA NO. 5915/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 M/S. TIME BOUND CONTRACTS PVT. LTD., PARSVNATH METRO TOWER, NEAR SHAHDARA METRO STATION, NEW DELHI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-25(3), NEW DELHI PAN : AACCT1772B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER O.P. KANT, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FILED AGA INST SEPARATE ORDERS, EACH DATED 19.08.2016, PASSED BY L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 13, NEW DELHI , [IN SHORT APPELLANT BY SHRI SANJAY JAIN,CA & SHRI AKSHAT JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI SHAILESH KUMAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 14.10.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.01.2020 2 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 LEARNED CIT(A)], FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 20 10-11 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY, IN RELATION TO LEVY OF PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT) FOR NON- COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. BEING IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ALL THESE APPE ALS, SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS CONS OLIDATED ORDER. THE GROUNDS IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 5909/DEL/2016, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDI NG PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY DISREGARDING DECISION OF JUDICIAL HONBLE ITAT THAT NO PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(B) IS TO BE IMPOSE, WHEN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) INSTEAD OF 1 44 OF THE ACT, WHICH IMPLIES THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCES MADE BY T HE APPELLANT WERE CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N UPHOLDING PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(B) WHEN NON - COMPLIANCE WAS N OT DELIBERATE BUT DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE, BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(B) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FAC T THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 274 R.W.S. 271, HENCE PENALTY IMPOSED WITHOUT GIVING THE APPEL LANT MANDATORY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF FOR AY 2005-06, ARE THAT DUE T O MATERIALS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE, FOUN D AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SE CTION 132 OF THE ACT AT THE PREMISES OF M/S. SDS GROUP OF COMPAN IES (OTHER ASSESSEE), PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE AC T WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ISS UE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASS ESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.03.2006. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THE 3 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ISSUED NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 11 TH DECEMBER, 2014; 2 ND JANUARY, 2015; AND 16 TH JANUARY, 2015. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF THESE NOTICES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FIL ED THE DETAILS AND ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED UNDER SECT ION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) READ WITH SECTION 27 4 OF THE ACT ON 16.01.2015 PROPOSING TO LEVY PENALTY FOR DEFAULT OF NON- COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE OF NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 11 TH DECEMBER, 2014; 2 ND JANUARY, 2015; AND 16 TH JANUARY, 2015. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EVEN THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE OF PENALTY ISSUED BY HI M AND, THEREFORE, HE LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS.10,000/- IN TERMS OF SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REQUESTED TO DELETE THE PENA LTY ON THE GROUNDS THAT NON-COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICES WAS NOT DELIBERATE AND SAME WAS DUE TO THE REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE, AND THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAME. ALTERNATIV ELY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AN D NOT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, WHICH IMPLIES THAT SUBSEQU ENT COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND HENCE, NO PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT IS REQUIRED TO BE LEVI ED. THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A ), WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARAS 4 AND 5 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO COMP LY WITH THE NOTICES. LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY OF NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIRD GROUND OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND, THEREFORE, THE DELAYED COMPLIANCE SHOULD BE TR EATED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE, WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UND ER : 6. THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS -HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONS IDERED. THE APPELLANT HAS FIRSTLY, ARGUED THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICE U/S 142(1). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, VIDE ITS LETTERS DATED 04.04.2014 AND 12.08.2 014, THE APPELLANT REQUESTED FOR COPY OF THE ATISFACTION REC ORDED BY THE AO BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C. THE SAME WAS PROVI DED AS LATE AS 11.12.2014. THEREAFTER, ON 26.12.2014, THE APPELLAN T FILED ITS OBJECTIONS TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C, WHICH WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE AO ON 02.01.2015. THE APPELLANT THEN FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.01.2015. IT IS CLAIMED THAT ALL THE DETAILS A SKED FOR BY THE AO WERE FURNISHED ON SUBSEQUENT DATES. HENCE IT IS SUB MITTED THAT THE DELAY IN COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DELAY OF THE AO IN PROVIDING THE COPY OF THE SA TISFACTION NOTE ALONG WITH COPIES OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON, WHICH CONSTITUTES REASONABLE CAUSE. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC.273B ARE APPLICABLE IN ITS CASE, AS THE APPELLA NT HAD REASONABLE CAUSE FOR ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES U/ S 142(1). FURTHER IT IS ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT AFFORDED A REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE IMPOSITION OF THE PENALTY. 6.1 THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS NARRATED IN THE ORDER OF PENALTY, AND IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE AO PROVIDED THE APPELLANT WITH A COPY OF THE SA TISFACTION NOTE AND COPIES OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL, ALONGWITH THE NO TICE U/S 142(1), ON 11.12.2014. THE APPELLANT'S OBJECTION TO THE ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S 153C WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE AO ON 02.01.2015. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ATTEND THE OFFICE ON 07.01.2015, AND ON 1 2.01.2015. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE DATED 16.01.2015, FOR HEARIN G ON 28.01.2015. THE APPELLANT ONLY FILED A COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN ON 21.03.2006. THE CASE WAS ADJOURN ED FOR 5 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 04.02.2015, AND ON THAT DATE, THE APPELLANT FILED D ETAILS OF ITS BUSINESS, DIRECTORS, AND REGISTERED OFFICES AND PLA CES OF BUSINESS, AND COPY OF AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE AO ISSUED A SHOWC AUSE NOTICE OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(B) DATED 16.01.2015 TO WHICH THE APPELLANT DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO FILE A REPLY. AS PER THE APPELLA NT'S OWN SUBMISSION, REPLIES TO THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) CALLI NG FOR VARIOUS DETAILS, WERE FILED ONLY ON 23.03.2015 FOR AN ASSES SMENT TIME BARRING ON 31.03.2015. HENCE THE APPELLANT'S PLEA T HAT IT HAD COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE A PPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTI CES DATED 11.12.2014, 12.01.2015 AND 16.01.2015 BECAUSE OF TH E AO'S DELAY IN PROVIDING IT WITH COPY OF SATISFACTION NOTE AND SEIZED DOCUMENTS (PROVIDED ON 11.12.2014) IS ALSO FAR-FETCHED. THE A PPELLANT IS HELD TO HAVE DEFAULTED IN ITS COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE. HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.L IS D ISMISSED. 7. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 PERTAINS TO THE APPELLANT' S PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT AFFORDED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE SAME IS NOT BORNE OUT BY THE RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS C LAIMED THAT IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE OF PENALTY U/S 27 1(L)(B), DATED 16.01.2015. NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR THE ALLEGE D NON-RECEIPT OF THE PENALTY NOTICE, WHEREAS THE AO HAS MENTIONED TH E ACKNOWLEDGMENT RECEIPT OF SPEED POST BY WHICH THE N OTICE WAS DISPATCHED, Y HENCE NO RELIEF IS BEING ALLOWED AT G ROUND OF APPEAL NO.2. 3. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RE ITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR COMPLYING WITH THE NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THA T FIRST NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 11.12 .2014 AND ON SAID DATE, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED AND MAT TER WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.01.2015. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSES SING OFFICER ISSUED ONE MORE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ON 2 ND JANUARY, 2015 WHICH ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THE THIRD NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 16 TH JANUARY, 2015, AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURN AND THUS P ARTIAL COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBS EQUENTLY, 6 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 SH. PRADEEP JAIN, CHAIRMAN OF THE PARSVNATH GROUP O F COMPANIES ATTENDED THE PROCEEDING ON 18.03.2015 AND HIS STATE MENT WAS DULY RECORDED AND ALL THE INFORMATIONS SOUGHT BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WERE DULY FILED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT NO PENALTY FOR DELAYED COMPLIAN CE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ARE IMPOSABLE WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE T RIBUNAL: 1. LOGICLADDER TECH PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE R, ITA NO. 4262/DEL/2018 (DEL.-ITAT) 2. GLOBUS INFOCOM LTD. VS. DCIT, ITA NO. 738/DEL/20 14; (DEL.-ITAT) 3. AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHMSHAK SANGH BHAWAN TRUS T VS. ASSTT. DIT, 115 TTJ 419 (DEL.-ITAT) 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) O F THE ACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF LOGICLADDER TECH PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) O F THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPL ETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH TH E SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RSL0,000/- U/S 271 (L)(B) OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE VA RIOUS STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY HIM. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 10.11.2016. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 7 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED WITH T HE STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED U/S 142(1) AND THE INFORMATION/DETAI LS ASKED FOR HAVE BEEN FURNISHED WHICH WERE DISCUSSED AND PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS WERE ATTENDED BY SHRI SANJAY JAIN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WITH WHOM THE CASE WAS DISCUSSED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHE D REQUISITE DETAILS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY COMPLIANCE OF STATUTORY NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASS ESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3), THEREFORE, UNDER THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO CANCEL THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 5.1 FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF GLOBUS INFOCOM LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE PENALTY LAID U/S 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DELETED, WHERE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE INSTANT APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT DELHI IN THE CASE OF AKHIL BHARTIYA PRATHMIK SHIKSHAK SANGH BHAW AN TRUST VS ACIT 5 DTR 429 (DELHI TRIBUNAL) WHEREIN THE COORDIN ATE BENCH IN PARAS 2.4 AND 2.5 HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 2.4 COMING TO THE ISSUE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACT ION, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT MERE INITIATION OF PENALTY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SATISFACTION AS HELD BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD. (2001) 167 CTR (DEL) 321 : (2000) 246 ITR 568 (DEL). IN ABSENCE OF RECOR DING OF THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MERE INITIATI ON OF PENALTY WILL NOT CONFER JURISDICTION ON THE AO TO LEVY THE PENALTY. 2.5 WE ALSO FIND THAT FINALLY THE ORDER WAS PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) AND NOT UNDER S. 144 OF THE ACT. THIS MEA NS THAT SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONSIDERED AS GOOD COMPLIANCE AND THE DEFAULTS COMM ITTED EARLIER WERE IGNORED BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON TO C OME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEFAULT WAS WILLFUL. 8 ITA NO.5909, 5914 & 5915 /DEL/2016 6. AS THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(B) OF THE ACT WAS PATENTLY WRONG, SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 143(3). WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PENALTY. 5.2 IN VIEW OF IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TH E INSTANT CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDING OF THE ORD ERS OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA), WE CANCEL THE PENALTY LEVIED OF R S.10,000/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, TH E APPEAL IN ITA NO.5909/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS ALL OWED. 6. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN OTHER TWO APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 A ND 2012-13 ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS W ELL AS THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 5909/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06, THEREFORE, TO HAVE CONSISTENCY IN OUR DECI SION, THE PENALTY LEVIED IN ITA NOS.5914 & 5915/DEL/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 AND 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY ARE ALSO CAN CELLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH JANUARY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 7 TH JANUARY, 2020. RK/-(D.T.D.) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI