DCIT 24(3), MUMBAI V. AVDH NARAYAN SINGH, MUMBAI

ITA 6062/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3265 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURLIDR
• Keywords: Capital asset

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES A, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 DCIT - 24(3), R. NO.701, C-11, 7 TH FLOOR, B.K.C. BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH, 204, AWADH HOUSE, THAKUR LAXMI SINGH ESTATE, S.V. ROAD, GOREGAON (W), MUMBAI-400062 PAN NO. AAZPS6963P ( / REVENUE) ( / ASSESSEE) / REVENUE BY SHRI M. MURLI-DR / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA / DATE OF HEARING : 29/03/2016 / DATE OF ORDER: 29/03/2016 ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 2 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23/06/2011 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY, MUMBAI. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTA INS TO DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,30,23,590/-, IMPOSED U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S. 2. DURING HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E, SHRI VIMAL PUNAMIYA, CONTENDED THAT THE PENALTY IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS QUANTUM ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED B Y THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 02/03/2016, IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE (ITA NO.7363/MUM/2010) AND ITA NO.7982/MUM/2010. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS CONSENTED TO BE CORRECT BY THE LD. DR, SHRI M. MURLI. 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW O F THE ABOVE, WE ARE REPRODUCING HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PO RTION FROM THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 02/03/2016 FOR READY REFERENCE AND ANALYSIS:- THESE CROSS APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 AND THEY ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT(A). AL L THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. EVEN THOUGH BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE URGED GROUNDS RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL GROUND S OF APPEAL, THEY HAVE ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 3 FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND CONTESTING THEREIN THE C APITAL GAINS IS NOT ASSESSABLE IN AY 2007-08, SINCE THE TRANSFER HAS TA KEN PLACE IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN TERMS OF SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT. SINCE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF TH E MATTER, WE ADMIT THE SAME AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME. 3. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE DISCUSSED IN BRIEF. BOTH THE ASSESSEES HAVE INHERITED A LAND FROM THEIR FATHER NAMED SHRI LAXMI SINGH UDIT SINGH. AFTER THE DEATH OF SHRI LAXMI SINGH UDIT SIN GH IN THE YEAR 1986, THE LAND WAS INHERITED BY HIS FIVE SONS. THE DAUGHT ERS OF SHRI LAXMI SINGH UDIT SINGH RELINQUISHED THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGH TS IN FAVOUR OF THEIR BROTHERS. THUS EACH SON INHERITED 1/5TH SHARE IN TH E LAND. THEY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 10-10-2002 WITH M/S BRICKWORKS TRADING PVT. LTD. FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND ACCORDINGLY EXECUTE D A POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 10-10-2002. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEES THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPERS AT THAT POIN T OF TIME ITSELF. 4. THE ASSESSEES HEREIN HAD DECLARED LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE DE PARTMENT NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI HARINARYAN L SINGH (ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS) THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN AL ONG WITH OTHER CO- OWNERS HAVE EXECUTED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON 09- 10-2002 WITH M/S BRICKSWORK TRADING PVT. LTD. (DEVELOPER). AS PER TH E DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE DEVELOPER SHALL GET 60% SHARE AND TH E CO-OWNERS SHALL GET 40%. IT WAS NOTICED THAT M/S BRICKWORK TRADING PVT. LTD. HAS DISTRIBUTED THE PROFIT TO ALL THE CO-OWNERS DURING THE F.Y 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEES HEREIN FOR AY 2007-08 TO ASSESS THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING THEREFROM. IN THE REOPENED ASSESSMENT, HE VARIED THE CAPITAL GAINS DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES. IN T HE APPEALS FILED BY THEM BEFORE LD CIT(A), THEY GOT PARTIAL RELIEF. HENCE TH E REVENUE AS WELL AS ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US ASSAILING THE DEC ISION RENDERED BY LD CIT(A) AGAINST EACH OF THEM. ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 4 5. THE MAIN CONTENTION URGED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES IS THAT THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TOOK P LACE IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND HENCE T HE CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSED IN AY 2007-08 WAS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE LAW AND HENCE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ERRONEOUSLY OFFERED THE CA PITAL GAINS IN AY 2007- 08, THE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THAT YEAR. 6. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD D.R PLACED STRONG RELIA NCE ON THE ORDERS PASSED BY TAX AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEES HAVE GOT THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE ONLY IN THE YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE AY 2007-08 AND THEY HAVE ALSO DECLARED THE SAME IN THEIR RESPECTIV E RETURNS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE PRE CLUDED FROM TAKING A DIFFERENT STAND AT THIS POINT OF TIME. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IT IS A WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THERE IS NO ES TOPPEL AGAINST LAW AND HENCE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN ARE ENTITLED TO CONTEND THAT THE INCOME OFFERED BY THEM IS NOT LIABLE TO TA X DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IF THE SAID INCOME IS NOT LIABLE TO TAX AT ALL IN THAT YEAR. IN THE INSTANT CASES, THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S BRICK WORK TRADING PVT. LTD. ON 09-10-2002. THE VERY FACT THAT THE DEVELOPM ENT PROJECT WAS COMPLETED IN THE FY 2006-07 ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE A GREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED MUCH EARLIER. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EX ECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN OCT., 2002. HE NCE THERE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THE POSSESSIO N WAS HANDED OVER TO THE DEVELOPER AT THAT POINT OF TIME ITSELF. 8. IN THIS REGARD, WE MAY REFER TO THE PROVISIONS O F SEC. 2(47), WHICH DEFINES THE WORD TRANSFER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE, WE EXTRACT BELOW THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (V) AND (VI) OF SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT:- 2(47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES, ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 5 ...... (V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE P OSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SEC. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF 1882); OR (VI) ANY TRANSACTION (WHETHER BY WAY OF BECOMING A MEMBER OF, OR ACQUIRING SHARES IN A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, COMPANY OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BY WAY OF AGREEMENT OR AN Y ARRANGEMENT OR IN ANY OTHER MANNER WHATSOEVER) WHICH HAS THE EF FECT OF TRANSFERRING, OR ENABLING THE ENJOYMENT OF, ANY IMM OVABLE PROPERTY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, BY VIRTUE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREE MENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE IMPUGNED LAND DUR ING THE FY 2002-03. HENCE, IN TERMS OF SEC.2(47)(V) AND 2(47)(VI) OF TH E ACT, THE TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN AY 2003-04. OU R VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CHATURBHU DWARKADAS KAPADIA VS. CIT ( 260 ITR 491). 9 THE LEGAL POSITION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT VIS- -VIS SECTION 2(47(V) OF THE ACT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CHATURBHUJ DWARKADAS KAPADIA, CITED SUPRA. THE R ELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HIGH COURT, IN THAT CASE, ARE E XTRACTED BELOW: IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE TRANSFER TILL GRANT OF IRREVOCABLE LICENCE. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE JUDGMENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT WERE CITED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALL THOSE JUDGMENTS WERE PRIOR TO INT RODUCTION OF THE CONCEPT OF DEEMED TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47)(V). IN THIS MATTER, THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN T. SUCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE TRANSFER I N GENERAL LAW. THEY ARE SPREAD OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THEY CONTEMP LATE VARIOUS STAGES. THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN VARIOUS JUDGMENTS HAS TAKEN THE VIEW IN SEVERAL MATTERS THAT THE OBJECT OF ENTERING INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS TO ENABLE A PROFESSIONAL BUILDER/CONTRACTOR TO MAKE PROFITS BY COMPLETING TH E BUILDING AND ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 6 SELLING THE FLATS AT A PROFIT. THAT THE AIM OF THES E PROFESSIONAL CONTRACTORS WAS ONLY TO MAKE PROFITS BY COMPLETING THE BUILDING AND, THEREFORE, NO INTEREST IN THE LAND STANDS CREA TED IN THEIR FAVOUR UNDER SUCH AGREEMENTS, THAT SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE ONL Y A MODE OF REMUNERATING THE BUILDER FOR HIS SERVICES OF CONSTR UCTING THE BUILDING (SEE GURUDEV DEVELOPERS V KURLA KONKAN NIW AS COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY (2000) 3 MAH LJ 131). I T IS PRECISELY FOR THIS REASON THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS INTRODUCED SECTION 2(47(V) READ WITH SECTION 45 WHICH INDICATES THAT CAPITAL G AINS IS TAXABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE ENTERED INT O EVEN IF THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS NOT EFFECTIVE OR COMPLETE UNDER THE GENERAL LAW. IN THIS CASE THAT TEST HAS NOT BEE N APPLIED BY THE DEPARTMENT. NO REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN WHY THAT TEST HAS NOT BEEN APPLIED, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTIO N, READ AS A WHOLE, SHOWS THAT IT IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. TH ERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT ON ONE HAND AND THE PERFORMANCE ON THE OTHER HAND. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL AS WE LL AS THE DEPARTMENT HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TRA NSFER TOOK PLACE DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ENDING 31.3.1996, AS SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS WERE EFFECTED DURING THAT YEAR AND SUBSTAN TIAL PERMISSIONS WERE OBTAINED. IN SUCH CASES OF DEVELOP MENT AGREEMENT, ONE CANNOT GO BY SUBSTANTIAL PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT. IN SUCH CASES, THE YEAR OF CHARGEABILITY IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONTRACT IS EXECUTED. THIS IS IN VIEW OF SECTION 2(47(V) OF THE ACT. .. IN THIS CASE, THE AGREEMENT IS A DEVELOPMENT A GREEMENT AND IN OUR VIEW, THE TEST TO BE APPLIED TO DECIDE THE Y EAR OF CHARGEABILITY IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INTO. WE HAVE TAKEN THIS VIEW FOR THE REASON THAT THE DEV ELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES NOT TRANSFER THE INTEREST IN THE PRO PERTY TO THE DEVELOPER IN GENERAL LAW AND, THEREFORE, SECTION 2( 47)(V) HAS BEEN ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 7 ENACTED AND IN SUCH CASES, EVEN ENTERING INTO SUCH A CONTRACT COULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT ITSEL F. . THEREFORE, IF ON A BARE READING OF A CONTRACT IN ITS ENTIRETY AN ASSESSING OFFICER COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE GUISE OF AGREEM ENT FOR SALE, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS CONTEMPLATED, UNDER WHICH THE DEVELOPER APPLIES FOR PERMISSIONS FROM VARIOUS AUTH ORITIES, EITHER UNDER POWER OF ATTORNEY OR OTHERWISE AND IN THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ENTITLED TO TAKE THE DATE OF CONTRACT AS THE DATE OF TRANSFER IN VIEW OF SECTION 2(47(V).. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COURT SHOULD GO ONLY BY THE DATE OF ACTUAL POSSESSION AND THAT I N THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE COURT SHOULD GO BY THE DATE ON WHICH IRRE VOCABLE LICENCE WAS GIVEN. 10. WE FEEL IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS ABO UT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF CHARUBHUJ DWARKADAS KAPADIA, REFERRED S UPRA, IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ENTER ED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 18.8.1994 TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO A BU ILDER FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.85 CRORES WITH A RIGHT TO THE BUILDER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RELEVAN T RULES. THE ASSESSEE SHALL GRANT AN IRREVOCABLE LICENSE TO ENTE R UPON THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF THE PROPERTY UPON RECEIPT OF NE CESSARY PERMISSIONS AND APPROVALS AND ALSO THE NOC UNDER CH APTER XXC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. BY 31.3.1996, THE BUILDER OB TAINED MOST OF THE APPROVALS AND ALSO PAID MAJOR PORTION OF THE CO NSIDERATION. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE BUILDER ON 12.3.1999. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAINS I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, SINCE THE LICENCE AND POWER OF ATTO RNEY WERE GIVEN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99. THE AO AND ITA T HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS IS ASSESSABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 SINCE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF TERMS OF AGREEMENT HAS TA KEN PLACE BEFORE 31.3.1996. HOWEVER THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED SALE AGREEMENT IS ONLY A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AN D HENCE THE ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 8 CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO. THUS THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE YEAR OF C HARGEABILITY WERE REJECTED. 11. THUS, AS PER THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CITED CASE, THE FACTORS SUC H AS DATE OF POSSESSION, SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE OF THE CONTRACT ETC. ARE NOT RELEVANT IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. THE HIGH COU RT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AIM OF THE BUILDER UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT A GREEMENT WAS TO MAKE PROFITS BY COMPLETING THE BUILDING AND THEREFORE, N O INTEREST IN THE LAND STANDS CREATED IN THEIR FAVOUR UNDER SUCH AGREEMENT S. THUS THE SAID AGREEMENTS ARE ONLY A MODE OF REMUNERATING THE BUIL DER FOR HIS SERVICES OF CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING. THE HIGH COURT HAS NO TICED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE ENTERING INTO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH THE BUILDERS BY CONFERRING PRIVILEGES OF OWNERSHIP TO THEM AND W ERE CLAIMING THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS WOULD ARISE ONLY AFTER REGISTERING TH E CONVEYANCE DEED. ACCORDINGLY THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SECTION 2( 47)(V) WAS BROUGHT INTO THE STATUTE TO PLUG THIS KIND OF LOOP HOLE. TH US BY CONSIDERING THE OBJECT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND ALSO THE P URPOSE OF INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT, THE HO NBLE HIGH COURT HAS FINALLY HELD THAT THE YEAR OF CHARGEABILITY IN THE CASE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IS THE YEAR IN WHICH THE CONTRACT WAS EX ECUTED. 12. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES HEREIN SUCCEED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND U RGED BY THEM. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING O N ENTERING OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS NOT TAXABLE IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08, BUT TAXABLE IN AY 2003-04. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSME NT OF CAPITAL GAINS MADE IN AY 2007-08 AND HENCE ALL THE GROUNDS URGED BY BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 9 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE ES ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 2.2. IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE AFORESAID ORDER, THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT THE C APITAL GAIN ARISING ON ENTERING ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT I S NOT TAXABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BUT IS TAXABLE I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. CONSIDERING THE FINDING O F THE TRIBUNAL, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WILL NOT SURVIV E FOR A.Y. 2007-08. WE HOLD SO. THUS, FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR I.E. 2007-08, PENALTY IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETE D. APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 29/03/2016. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ # / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED : 29/03/2016 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %& '( / THE APPELLANT (RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE) 2. )*'( / THE RESPONDENT. ITA NO.6062/MUM/2011 SHRI AVADH NARAYAN SINGH 10 3. + + , ( %& ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. + + , / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI, 5. /01 )2 , + %& %23 , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 14 5 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, */& ) //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI