M/s. Rana Papers Ltd., Muzaffarnagar V. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6123/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 612320114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA
• Keywords: Difference of opinion; Onus to prove

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I. C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 6123/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S. RANA PAPERS LTD., VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, JANSATH ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR MUZAFFARNAGAR GIR / PAN:AAACR7902B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SR. DR ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.08.2012. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN VARIOUS G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BUT THE CRUX OF THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) BY WHICH HE HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IM POSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND INVITED OU R ATTENTION TO THE SUBMISSIONS AS RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A) AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ORDER. LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY ON THE BASIS THAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ADD ITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. 3. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 2 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL P[ARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROU GH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DE BITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,56,357/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PENALTY, IN COME TAX PAID, PURCHASE OF PADDY AND DEMURRAGE CHARGES ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. BEFORE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT TH E ADDITIONS WERE MADE ONLY BECAUSE OF DIFFERENCE IN OPINION AND, THEREFOR E, PENALTY WAS NOT APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AS THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED TO ITS P & L ACCOUNT INCOME TAX AND EXCISE DUTY PENALTY WHICH AP PARENTLY IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT AN D THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. LD. CI T(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, UPHELD THE PENALTY BY HOLDING AS UNDER: THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. IT IS OBS ERVED THAT THE THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE NOT MERE DISALLOWANC ES AS BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMP T BY THE APPELLANT TO TAKE UNDUE BENEFIT BY CLAIMING PRIMA FACIE INADMISS IBLE EXPENSE LIKE PENALTIES AND INCOME TAX IN THE P & L A/C. FURTHER, THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN INFLATED BY DEBITING A PURCHASE BILL TWIC E. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS OF QUANTUM ADDITIONS, THE APP ELLANT DID NOT PRESS THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF 'EXCISE DUTY' AT RS.30,000/- AND 'INCOME TAX' AT RS.L,89,047/- AND 'DEMURRAGE CHARGE S' AT RS.28,3501-. THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED PRIMA FACIE INADMISSIBLE CLAIMS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AN D MANIPULATED ITS ACCOUNT BY INFLATING THE EXPENSES AND THEREBY EVADI NG THE TAXES ON IT. FROM THE DETAILED NARRATION OF WHATEVER HAPPENED I N THIS CASE DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS; IT IS VERY CLEAR TO ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 3 ME THAT THE ASSESSEE UTTERLY FAILED WHY INADMISSIBL E EXPENSES LIKE EXCISE PENALTY AT RS.30,000/- AND INCOME TAX AT RS. L,89,047/- WERE DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. FURTHER, NATU RE OF EXPENSES DEBITED THE HEAD 'DEMURRAGE CHARGES' AT RS.28,350/- WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ONUS WAS SQUARELY ON T HE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME: HOWEVER, INSPITE OF SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY GIVEN, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DO SO. RATHER THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRESS THE IMPUGNED ISSUE DURING. APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REGARD ING AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF ADDITIONS UNDER THE AFORESAID HEADS AS THE SAME HAD BEEN PENAL IN NATURE. FURTHERMORE, THE PURCHASE BIL L AT RS.9,000/- WAS DEBITED TWICE IN ORDER TO INFLATE EXPENSES. THE ABOVE CONCLUSION AS AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER, SHIFTED THE BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT WAS NOT ATTRACTED. THE EXPLANATION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) CREATES THE LEGAL FICTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED PARTICUL ARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME A ND THEREFORE THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT HIS FAILU RE TO RETURN CORRECT INCOME DID NOT ARISE FROM ANY FRAUD OR ANY GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT ON HIS PART. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON (I) SOM NATH OIL MILLS 214 ITR 32(GUJ.) SAYING THAT THE FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE GOOD EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT. (II) JEEVAN LAL SHAH 205 ITR 244(SC) AND BALASUBRAMIUM 2 36 ITR 977(SC) SAYING THAT THE LAW THAT REVENUE HAS TO PROVE THE CONCEALMENT, NO LONGER HOLDS GOOD. (III) SMT. SHASHI AGARWAL 272 ITR 36(ALL.) SAYING THAT ON CE EXPLANATION TO 271 (1)( C) IS ATTRACTED, THE ASSESS EE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISH ED ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND HENCE BURDEN TO PROVE OTHERWISE SHIFTS ON THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE AP PELLANT, BEFORE THE AO DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND NOW DURIN G APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN UNSATISFACTORY AND UNCONVINCIN G. THUS, IT IS INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO REBUT THE PRES UMPTION THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ACCRETION IN CAP ITAL RESULTED BECAUSE OF CONCEALMENT OF TRUE PARTICULARS. ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 4 THE APPELLANT'S REFERENCE TO HON'BLE COURTS RULING S DON'T HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ALL THESE CASE LAW S SAY THAT ONLY ONE FACTOR CANNOT BE IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DECIDE THE ISS UE. IT IS THE COMBINATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH HAVE TO BE CONS IDERED IN TOTALITY. AS POINTED EARLIER, THE ONUS SHIFTS ON TO THE ASSES SEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAD NOT CONCEALED TRUE PARTICULARS. RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) A.M.SHAH & COMPANY 238 ITR415 158 CTR I(GUJ.) SAYIN G THAT ANY BOGUS ENTRY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ANY CORRESP ONDING DISCREPANCY IN RETURN OF INCOME INDICATES CONCEALME NT. II) RAM SEWAK RAM CHANDRA 151 CTR 294(AIL) SAYING THAT ONCE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271 (1)( C) WAS ATTRACTED BU T THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW ABSENCE OF FRAUD OR WILLFUL NEGLECT; PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. III) GURBACHAN LAL 250 ITR 157(DEL) SAYING THAT THE MAIN , IMPORT OF EXPLANATION IS THAT BURDEN IS ON ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE MOMENT A FA NTASTIC OR AN UNACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION IS OFFERED, THE BURDEN PLA CED ON ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED AND PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT REBUTTED. THE ONUS IS NOT ON REVENUE TO PROVE, BY SOME POSITIVE M ATERIAL OR POSITIVE CIRCUMSTANCES; THE SAME HAS TO BE DONE BY THE ASSES SEE. ON THE BASIS OF ALL THE ABOVE CASE LAWS, WHICH INCL UDE THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ALSO, I HOLD THAT IN A CASE OF INADMISSIBLE EXPENSES, BURDEN LIED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR OF TRUE PARTICULARS . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY SATISF ACTORY EXPLANATION IN REBUTTAL OF THE PRESUMPTION THAT INADMISSIBLE EX PENSES REPRESENTED INFLATION OF EXPENSES TO AVOID INCIDENCE OF TAX. TO SUM-UP THE THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE NOT MERE DISALLOWANC ES AS' BEING CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A DELIBERATE ATTEMP T BY THE APPELLANT TO TAKE UNDUE BENEFIT BY CLAIMING PRIMA FACIE INADMISS IBLE EXPENSE LIKE PENALTIES AND INCOME TAX IN THE P & LAIC. FURTHER, THE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN INFLATED BY DEBITING A PURCHASE BILL TWICE. I AM FULLY IN AGREEMENT WITH THE A.O. IN HIS OBSERVATION THAT HAD THERE BEEN NO SCRUTINY, THE APPELLANT WOULD HAVE WALK AWAY BY CLA IMING SUCH EXPENSES AND BY REDUCING THE PROFITS BY THOSE AMOUN TS. IT IS BEYOND ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 5 DOUBT ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED BLATANTLY INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH THE INTENTION TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY. I AM FULLY CONVINCED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS DEFINITELY ATTRACTED IN SUCH A CASE. THE A.O. IS FU LLY JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING MINIMUM PENAL OF RS 78,447/- UPON THE APPE LLANT. THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.1 TO 7 A RE DISMISSED. 3.1 GROUND OF APPEAL NO.8 IS GENERAL IN NATURE SO A S TO REQUIRED SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUG H THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED T HE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN THE P & L ACCOUNT.: I) EXCISE DUTY PENALTY RS.30,000/- II) INCOME TAX RS.1,89,047/- IV) PURCHASE OF PADDY RS.09,000/- V) DEMURRAGE CHARGES PAID TO CONTAINER CORPORATION RS.28,350/- RS.2,56,397/- 6.1 NEITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN THE DEBIT ON ACCOUNT OF PURC HASE OF PADDY AND DEMURRAGE CHARGES. AS REGARDS EXCISE DUTY PENALTY AND INCOME TAX DEBIT IN THE P & L ACCOUNT, THESE ARE THE ITEMS WHICH ARE CL EARLY NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER ELABORAT ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE PENALTY. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. IN I.T.A.NO. 07 /2010, UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HAS HELD AS UNDER: 19. IT IS TRUE THAT MERE SUBMITTING A CLAIM WHICH IS INCORRECT IN LAW WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F THE INCOME OF ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 6 THE ASSESSEE, BUT IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE CL AIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE BONAFIDE. IF THE CLAIM BESIDES BEING INCORRECT IN LAW IS MALAFIDE, EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) WO ULD COME INTO PLAY AND WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. THE COURT CANNOT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS ARE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT ONLY INCORRECT IN LAW BU T IS ALSO WHOLLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY HIM FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IS NOT FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE, IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT HE WOULD STILL NOT BE LIABLE TO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.7/2010 PAGE 14 OF 18 IF WE TAKE THE VIEW THAT A CLAIM WHICH IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NO FOUNDATION ON WHICH IT COULD BE MADE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE L IABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, EVEN IF HE WAS NOT ACTING BONAFIDE WHIL E MAKING A CLAIM OF THIS NATURE, THAT WOULD GIVE A LICENCE TO UNSCRUPUL OUS ASSESSEES TO MAKE WHOLLY UNTENABLE AND UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS WITH OUT THERE BEING ANY BASIS FOR MAKING THEM, IN THE HOPE THAT THEIR R ETURN WOULD NOT BE PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEY WOULD BE ASSESSED O N THE BASIS OF SELF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT AND EVEN IF THEIR CASE IS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEY CAN GET AWAY MERELY BY PAYING THE TAX, WHICH IN ANY CASE, WAS PAYABLE BY THEM. THE CONSEQU ENCE WOULD BE THAT THE PERSONS WHO MAKE CLAIMS OF THIS NATURE, AC TUATED BY A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO EVADE TAX OTHERWISE PAYABLE B Y THEM WOULD GET AWAY WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX LEGALLY PAYABLE BY THEM , IF THEIR CASES ARE NOT PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY. THIS WOULD TAKE AWAY TH E DETERRENT EFFECT, WHICH THESE PENALTY PROVISIONS IN THE ACT HAVE. 21. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US DID NOT EXP LAIN EITHER TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES OR TO THE INCOME TAX APPELLA TE TRIBUNAL AS TO IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON ACCOUNT OF WHOSE MISTA KE, THE-AMOUNTS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTIONS IN THIS ITA NO.7/2010 PAGE 15 OF 18 CASE WERE NOT ADDED, WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. WE CANNOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH MUST BE HAVING PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANCE IN COMPUTATION OF ITS INCOME, AND ITS ACCOUNTS ARE COMPULSORILY SUBJECTED TO AUDIT. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE FAIL TO APPRECIATE HO W SUCH DEDUCTIONS COULD HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 7 COMPANY AND HOW IT COULD ALSO HAVE ESCAPED THE ATTE NTION OF THE AUDITORS OF THE COMPANY. 22. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT ACCEPTED EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE VIEW OF INCOME TAX APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL REGARDING ADMISSIBILITY OF THE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF WRITTEN OFF OF CERTAIN ASSETS, UNDER SECTION 32(1)(III) OF THE ACT IS WHOLLY ERRONEOUS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE EX PLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE DEDUCTI ON DUE TO CERTAIN ASSETS BEING WRITTEN OFF WAS A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION . THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOWHERE HELD THAT IT WAS DUE TO OVERSIGHT THAT THE AMOUNT OF THIS DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE ADDED WHILE COMPUTING THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 23. AS REGARDS DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME TAX P AID ITA NO.7/2010 PAGE 16 OF 18 BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUN AL FELT THAT SINCE NO PERSON WOULD CLAIM THE SAME AS DEDUCTION, TO EVA DE PAYMENT OF TAX, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MALAFID E. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TELLING THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS TO WHO COMMITTED THE OVERSIGHT RESULTING IN FAILURE TO ADD THIS AMOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER WHAT CI RCUMSTANCES THE OVERSIGHT OCCURRED AND WHY IT WAS NOT DETECTED BY T HOSE WHO CHECKED THE INCOME TAX RETURN BEFORE IT WAS FILED AND LATER BY THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GENERAL VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN OUR VIEW, NO SUCH VIEW COULD HAVE REAS ONABLY BEEN TAKEN, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THIS CASE AND, .THEREFORE, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS RE GARD SUFFERS FROM THE VICE OF PERVERSITY. WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE GENERAL PR OPOSITION THAT NO PERSON WOULD EVER CLAIM THE AMOUNT OF INCOME TAX AS A DEDUCTION WITH A VIEW TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX. NO HARD AND FAST RU LE IN THIS REGARD CAN BE LAID DOWN AND EVERY CASE WILL HAVE TO BE DEC IDED CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH A DEDUCTI ON IS CLAIMED, COUPLED WITH AS TO WHETHER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE CLAIM, IS SHOWN TO BE BONAFIDE OR NOT. 24. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAP HS, ITA NO.7/2010 PAGE 17 OF 18 WE ANSWER THE QUESTION OF L AW FRAMED IN THIS CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO.6123/DEL/2012 8 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN DELET ING THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.L LAKH CLAIMED AS DEDUC TION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.13,24,53 9/- DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD 'EQUIPMENT WRITTEN OFF', IN THE PROF IT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCO RDINGLY. 6.2 WE OBSERVE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AS IN THE CASE OF ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. L TD. (SUPRA), THEREFORE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 8. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH JULY, 2014. SD./- SD./- (I. C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 25 TH JULY, 2014 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI).