Sh. Satish Goyal, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 635/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9032 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.635/CHD/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) SH.SATISH GOYAL, VS. THE D.C.I.T, SCF 153, SECTOR 26, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAGSPK9083D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 24.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.10.2016 O R D E R PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 3 GURGAON, DATED 28/03/2016. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY OF RS.10,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271AAA R.W.S. 274 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS PER PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER. 2 2. THAT WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT PENALTY U/S 271AA WAS LEVIABLE AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT PAID TAXES AND INTEREST IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THE CONDITION WHICH WAS ACCEPTED AND ON WHICH, NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAXES ALONGWITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT THE TIME OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA AND CONSIDERING THE SAME , NO PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS GROUND. 4. THAT SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE COURSE O F HEARING HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED PROPERLY. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEAR D OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELATES TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 AA A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. 4. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT A SEA RCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PAVITRA GROUP OF CASES ON 16/02/2012. THE ASSESSEE, SH.SATISH GOYAL, WAS ONE OF THE PERSONS COVERED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A TOTAL SURRENDER, FOR THE GROUP, OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OVER AND ABOVE THE RE GULAR 3 INCOME, OF RS.4,00,00,000/- WAS MADE, UNDER SECTIO N 132 (4) OF THE ACT, VIDE THE STATEMENT OF SH.HARSH GOYA L. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH INFORMATION REGARDING THE TOTA L DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM, DOCUMENT WISE/ASSET WISE/INVESTMENT WISE, SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WH ICH THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED BY HIM AND TO MENTION THE AMOUNT OF TAXES PAID ON THE ADDITION AL UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A TOTAL SURRENDER OF RS.1,00,00,000/-HAD BEEN MADE BY HIM OUT OF WHICH RS. 50 LACS HAD BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERY AND THE BALANCE RS. 50 LACS ON RENOVATION DONE TO HOUSE NO. 54, SECTOR 28, CHANDIGARH AND HOUSE NO . 127, SECTOR 27, CHANDIGARH. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE JEWELLERY FOUND HAD BEEN ACQUIRE D BY HIM OVER THE YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS GIFTS RECE IVED FROM RELATIVES ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS AND FURTHER STA TED THAT THE RENOVATION OF THE SAID HOUSES WAS CARRIED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PROP ER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, I.E., BILLS ETC THE SUM OF RS . 50 LACS HAD BEEN SURRENDERED AGAINST EXPENDITURE MADE ON THE SAME. THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RUPE ES ONE CRORE BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SPECIFIED THE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BUT NOT ITS BREAKUP O R BASIS, NOR SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING THE SAME, INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 AAA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ,1961.DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY 4 PROCEEDINGS ,THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY REITERATING T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND REQUESTED THAT SINCE THE DISCLOSURE OF THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME ALONG WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME HA D BEEN EARNED HAD BEEN MADE AND THE APPLICABLE TAXES THEREON HAD BEEN PAID, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA OF THE ACT WAS LEVIABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY SPECIFIED THE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME BUT HAD NEITHER SPECIFIED ITS BREAKUP NOR TH E BASIS NOR SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER OF EARNING THE SAME AN D THEREFORE LEVIED PENALTY ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1,00,00,000/-AT THE RATE OF 10% AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/-. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), REITERATING THE SUBMISSIO NS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER RELYING UP ON THE DECISION OF THE IT AT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV GOEL AND OTHERS, TO STATE THAT WHEN THE MAN NER IS NOT DISCLOSED NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA IS LE VIABLE AND IT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE IF THE INCOME HAD BEEN DISCLOSED AND TAXES PAID THEREON. LD. CIT(A), AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132 (4) OF THE ACT. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER AGREED WITH THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SINCE ITS CASE IS IDENTICAL TO TH AT IN THE 5 CASE OF SH. SANJEEV GOEL, DECIDED BY THE CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA NO. 108 AND 109/CHANDIGARH/2015, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHIC H THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED. BUT, LD. CIT(A) THE REAFTER FOUND THAT THE TAXES DUE ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME HAD NOT BEEN PAID BY THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN A ND HAD BEEN PAID MUCH BEYOND THE DUE DATE. THEREFORE, RELY ING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS CIT (2006 ) 287 ITR 376, LD.CIT(A) STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH ONE OF THE NECESSARY CONDITIONS FOR C LAIMING IMMUNITY FROM THE LEVY OF PENALTY AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE UPHELD THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING, LD. AR STATED THAT THE ONLY REASON FOR UPHOLDING TH E LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION271AAA, BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID THE TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT. LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, UDAIP UR VERSUS M/S GEBILAL KANHIYALAL HUF, THROUGH KARTA, UDAIPUR IN WHICH IT WAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE ONLY CONDITION WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED FO R GETTING 6 IMMUNITY FROM THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY TAXES TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME UP TO THE DATE OF PAYMEN T. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD HEL D THAT THE THAT NO TIME LIMIT, WITHIN WHICH THE TAXES WERE TO BE PAID ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WAS PRESCRIBED UNDE R THE ACT. LD. AR THEREFORE STATED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIE D UNDER SECTION 271AAA, WAS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDED TO BE QUASHED. LD.AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN IDENTIC AL CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE PENAL TY LEVIED U/S 271AAA, IN THE CASE OF SEVERAL ASSESSEES RELATING TO THE PAVITRA GROUP OF CASES. LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-3, GURG AON, IN THE CASE OF SH. HARSH GOYAL, NEW SAGAR ENTERPRISES , ANITA GOYAL, KUNAL GOYAL, RAVI GOYAL, KRISHAN KU MAR GOYAL, POOJA GOYAL AND SUMAN GOYAL, IN WHICH, LD. AR STATED THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT I T HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA OF THE ACT AND DELETED THE PE NALTY LEVIED. 7. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND STATED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT PAID THE DUE TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED, BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF 7 INCOME, THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271AAA HAD BEEN COR RECTLY UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE DOC UMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL IS WHETHER FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM THE L EVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA ,THE ASSESSEE IS REQUI RED TO PAY THE DUE TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD. CIT (A), WE FIND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA VS CIT (2006 ) 287 ITR 376 FOR UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED CASE HELD AS UNDER : IT WAS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT CERTAIN UNDISCLOSED AS SETS WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND BESIDES THAT CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FOUN D FROM WHICH IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED UNDISCLOSED IN COME AS WELL. IN THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 10 LAKHS AS CONCE ALED INCOME FOR THE YEAR IN QUESTION. THE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION HAD NOT YET EXPIRED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EVEN FILE THE RETURN ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE. HE FILED THE SAME ON 19.1.1 995. WHAT TO TALK OF PAYMENT OF TAX AND INTEREST, IF ANY, DUE FROM THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME, SO SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE DUE DATE, THE AS SESSEE DID NOT EVEN PAY THE AMOUNT ALONG WITH THE BELATED RETURN FILED ON 1 9.1 . 1995. FROM A READING OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS CONCESSION IS MEANT FOR PERSONS W HO AFTER SURRENDERING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, PAY TH E AMOUNT OF TAX ALONG WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, ON SUCH INCOME BEFORE THE DU E DATE. THIS DOES NOT GIVE LIBERTY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PLEAD THAT NO PENAL TY SHOULD BELEVIED ON HIM 8 FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME MERELY FOR THE REASON THA T HAVING FAILED TO PAY THE DUE TAX AND THE INTEREST ON THE DUE DATE, THE A SSESSEE PAID THE STATUTORY INTEREST THEREON. IN OUR VIEW, THE CONCESSION, AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANA TION 5, REFERRED TO ABOVE, CAN BE AVAILED OF ONLY BY AN ASSESSEE WHO AFTER SURRENDERING THE INCOME, PAYS THE TAX IMMEDIATELY A ND NOT BELATEDLY. [PARA 2] 9. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE HONBLE HIG H COURT HAD HELD THAT IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY IS TO BE AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT, ONL Y IF TAX ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME ALONG WITH THE INTEREST I S PAID IMMEDIATELY AND IN ANY CASE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. 10. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS REVERSED THE ABOVE PROPOSITION IN THE CASE OF ACIT , UDAIPUR VS M/S GEBILAL KANHAIYALAL HUF, THROUGH KAR TA, UDAIPUR,(2012) 348 ITR 561 (SC) AND CATEGORICALLY H ELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM THE RIGOURS OF PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE 2 OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271 (1)(C), NO TIME LIMIT IS PRESCRIBED WIT HIN WHICH THE ASSESSEE SHOULD PAY TAX ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4). THE HONBLE APE X COURT DEALT WITH THE IMPUGNED ISSUE AS FOLLOWS : EXPLANATION 5 IS A DEEMING PROVISION. IT PROVIDES THAT WH ERE, IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, THE ASSESS EE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF UNACCOUNTED ASSETS AND THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILIZING, WHOLLY OR PARTLY, HIS INCOME FOR ANY PREVIOU S YEAR 9 WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH OR WHICH IS TO END ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, THEN, IN SUCH A SITUAT ION, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF SE ARCH, HE SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 27L(1)(C). THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS TO SUCH A DEEMING PROVIS ION OR TO SUCH A PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT ARE GIVEN IN SUB-C LAUSES (1) AND (2) OF EXPLANATION 5. IN THIS CASE, WE ARE CONCE RNED WITH INTERPRETATION OF CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5, WHI CH HAS BEEN QUOTED ABOVE. THREE CONDITIONS HAVE GOT TO BE S ATISFIED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM PAYMENT OF - PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(L)(C). THE FIRST CONDITION WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST MAKE A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) IN THE COURSE OF SEA RCH STATING THAT THE UNACCOUNTED ASSETS AND INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN TS FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION DURING THE SEARCH HAVE BE EN ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS INCOME, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLO SED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE EXPIRY OF TIME SPECIFIED IN SECTION 139(1). SUCH STATEMENT WAS MAD E BY THE K.ARTA DURING THE SEARCH WHICH CONCLUDED ON AUGUST 1, 1987. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT CONDITION NO.L WAS FULFILLED . THE SECOND CONDITION FOR AVAILING OF THE IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U NDER SECTION 271(L)(C) WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD SPECI FY, IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME STOOD DERIVED. ADMITTEDLY, THE SECOND CONDIT ION, IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO STOOD SATISFIED. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER CLA USE (2) AS HE DID NOT SATISFY THE THIRD CONDITION FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF WAIVER OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) AS THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31ST JULY, 1987 AND PA Y TAX THEREON PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE CONCEDED ON AUGUST 1, 1987 THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THE THIRD CONDITION UNDER CLAUSE (2) WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D TO PAY THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESP ECT OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, NO TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH TAX STOOD PRESCRIBED UNDER CLAUSE ( 2). 10 THE ONLY REQUIREMENT STIPULATED IN THE THIRD CONDIT ION WAS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO 'PAY TAX TOGETHER WITH INTE REST'. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE THIRD CONDITION ALSO STOOD FU LFILLED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX WITH INTEREST UPTO THE DA TE OF PAYMENT. THE ONLY CONDITION WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO B E FULFILLED FOR GETTING THE IMMUNITY, AFTER THE SEARC H PROCEEDINGS GOT OVER, WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME UPTO THE DATE OF PAYMENT. CLAUSE (2) DID NOT PRESCRIBE THE TIME LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE A SSESSEE SHOULD PAY TAX ON INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) . 11. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE SUPREME COURT AN D THEREFORE IT IS SETTLED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CL AIMING IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF P AYING TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 (1) OF THE ACT. FURTHER IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED IN THE STATEMENT MAD E UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE MANNER OF EARN ING THE INCOME AND ITS SUBSTANTIATION THEREOF HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND IS NOT THE MATTER OF DISPUTE. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE HAS FULFILLED ALL T HE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 AAA OF THE ACT. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF OTHER AS SESSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME GROUP, THE LD CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE 11 CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN BESIDES OTHER PLEADINGS MADE, THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE AFORES TATED APEX COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF GEBILAL KANHAIYA LAL (SUPRA) ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, AND DELETED THE PENA LTY LEVIED. FURTHER, ADMITTEDLY ,NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FIL ED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE SAID ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SEC TION 271AAA OF THE ACT OF RS.10,00,000/-. 13. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH OCTOBER, 2016 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH