FCI Asia Pte Ltd., Singapore V. DCIT, Circle- 1(3)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 6436/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3078 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMPOORN ANAND SETH SENIOR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 274; 143(2); 73

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.6436 /DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. FCI ASIA PTE LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 1(3)(1), (NOW KNOWN AS AMPHENOL FCI ASIA NEW DELHI. PTE LTD.), KAMPONG AMPAT, #04-01/04, KA PLACE, SINGAPORE 368 328. (PAN : AABCF5252B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAVI SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI SAMPOORN ANAND SETH, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2021 DATE OF ORDER : 03.03.2021 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : APPELLANT, M/S. FCI ASIA PTE LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.07.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-42, NEW DELHI AFFIRMING THE PE NALTY ORDER DATED 10.03.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE GROUNDS INTER ALIA THAT :- ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 2 1. THE LD. CIT(A) AND. LD. AO HAVE ERRED IN FINAL IZING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, VIOLATIVE OF PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, DEVOID OF MERITS, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT INVOLVED, WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN PROPER LIGHT, WITHOUT CONDUC TING ADEQUATE INQUIRIES AND AS SUCH IS WITHOUT JURISDICT ION. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS BY LEVYING OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT ON INTEREST INCOME WHERE IN FACT THE APPELLANT HAD VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE SAID INCOME AND HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY FACTS, NOR DI SCLOSED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND HAS IN FACT DISCLOSED TH E NATURE OF TRANSACTION IN THE STATUTORY RECORDS OF THE APPELLA NT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS BY LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHEN THE NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY AS TO WHETHER IT WAS PROMPTED BY CO NCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS BY LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON INTEREST INCOME, WITHOUT ANY EXPLICIT SATISFACTION BEING REC ORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. AO FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED THE I NTEREST INCOME AND DID NOT HAVE ANY INTENTION OF CONSCIOUS CONCEAL MENT OF TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. AO, HAVING ACCEPTED T HE VOLUNTARY DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE APPELLANT, HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED T HE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. AO FAILED TO APPRECIA TE THE FACT THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT DID NOT PREF ER AN APPEAL REGARDING THE SAID AMOUNT, WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE IM POSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. AO HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS, BY PASSING THE TIME BARRED PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECT ION 275(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE INTEREST INCOME WAS NEVER A SUBJECT MATTER OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER FRAMED ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 3 UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144C OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME O F RS.5,75,90,635/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,47,3 9,918/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME CHARGEABLE TO THE TAXABL E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,92,86,277/- ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY/FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES, PENALTY PROCEED INGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DECL INING THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO LEVIED THE P ENALTY OF RS.22,10,988/- @ 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADE D. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING AN APPEAL WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY D ISMISSING THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LE VIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) CONTENDED INTER ALIA THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO RECORD A VALID SATISFACTION SO AS TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C); THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY WAY OF FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE A S IT HAS SUO MOTU ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 4 RECTIFIED HIS MISTAKE BY WRITING A LETTER TO AO BY BRINGING INTEREST INCOME TO BE CHARGED TO THE INCOME-TAX; THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY IN THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)( C)/274 OF THE ACT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS O F INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND RELI ED UPON THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS -73 TAXMANN.COM 241 (KAR.) (REVENUE S SLP DISMISSED IN 242 TAXMAN 180) AND HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF DELHI IN PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE CO MPANY LTD. IN ITA 475/2019 ORDER DATED 02.08.2019. 6. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR FOR THE REVEN UE TO REPEL THE ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT BY FILING RETURN OF INCOME BEYOND THE PRESCRIB ED PERIOD AND BY NOT SHOWING THE INTEREST INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX, IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME; THAT RIGHT FROM INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SP ECIFICALLY INTIMATED AS TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. 7. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ARGUMENTS ADDRESSED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, THE SOLE QUESTION ARISES FOR DETERMINAT ION IN THIS CASE IS:- ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 5 AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULA RS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME F OR AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS? 8. UNDISPUTEDLY, ASSESSEE HAD FILED BELATED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT I.E. ON 31.03.2011 DECLAR ING NIL INCOME AND THEREBY CLAIMED A REFUND OF RS.63,43,661/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 30.06.2011 INTIMATED AO THAT DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1,11,75,478/- COULD NOT BE REFLECTED SEPARATELY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN RES TATED AT RS.1,11,75,478/- AND REQUESTED TO REDUCE THE CLAIM OF REFUND TO RS.46,67,339/- AS AGAINST EARLIER CLAIM OF REFUND O F RS.63,43,661/-. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT SINCE THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE STATUTORY DEADLINE, IT HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE THE SAME. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT LE TTER DATED 30.06.2011 WAS WRITTEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO PR IOR TO THE SCRUTINY NOTICE DATED 29.08.2011 ISSUED U/S 143 (2) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND F URNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF QUA INTEREST INCOME. 9. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY T HE AO IT IS APPARENTLY CLEAR THAT IN PARA 12 OF THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, AO HAS RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION TO INITIATE THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS FOR ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 6 FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY NOT OFFERING THE RECEIPTS AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY PERUSAL AS UNDE R :- 12. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME BY NOT OFFERING THE RECEIPTS AS FTS WHILE FI LING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, I CONSIDER IT A FIT CA SE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. AT THE SAME TIME, WHEN WE EXAMINE PARAS 15 & 16 OF THE PENALTY ORDER IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE PENALTY H AS BEEN LEVIED FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR NOT OFFERI NG THE INTEREST INCOME TO TAX, WHEREAS AO HAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FO R FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY NOT OFFERING T HE INCOME AS FEE FOR TECHNICAL SERVICES (FTS). IT IS BEYOND C OMPREHENSION AS TO HOW HE HAS PROCEEDED TO LEVY THE PENALTY FOR FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY NOT OFFERING TH E INTEREST INCOME TO TAX QUA WHICH THERE WAS NO SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SO, ON GROUND OF INVALID SATISFACTION RATHER NO SAT ISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO, PENALTY LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SU STAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 11. FURTHERMORE, WHEN WELL BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTIC E U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ASSESSEE HAS DULY INTIMATED THE AO THAT DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE, HE COULD NOT BRING THE INTERES T INCOME TO TAX ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 7 AND SOUGHT TO REDUCE HIS CLAIM OF REFUND TO RS.46,6 7,339/- AS AGAINST THE EARLIER REFUND OF RS.63,43,661/- CLAIME D IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THERE IS NO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS OF INCOME, PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING OPPORTUNI TY OF FILING THE REVISED RETURN. 12. MOREOVER, AO HAS FAILED TO SPECIFY IN THE SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE A CT IF ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN ORDER TO PROCEED FURTHER , WE WOULD LIKE TO PERUSE THE NOTICE DATED 06.02.2012 ISSUED BY AO U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO INITIATE THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER FOR READY PERUSAL:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. INCOME TAX OFFICE, NEW DELHI. DATED: 06.02..2012 TO FCI ASIA PTE LTD., 138, 17, CORPORATE OFFICE, ROBINSON ROAD, SINGAPORE. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU:- HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR FU RNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IN TERMS OF E XPLANATION 1, 2,3,4 AND 5. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 11. 45 AM/PM ON 21.02.2012 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 8 PENALTY ON YOU SHOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVES YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DAT E WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERS BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTI ON 271. SD/- ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(2), ROOM NO.410, (INTL. TAXATION), DRUMSHAPE BLDG. NEW DELHI. 13. BARE PERUSAL OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, EXTRACTED ABOVE, IN ORDER TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AO HIMSELF WAS NOT AWARE / SURE AS TO WHETHER HE IS ISSUING NOTICE TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE RATHER ISSUED VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS N OTICE BY INCORPORATING BOTH THE LIMBS OF SECTION 271(1)(C). WHEN THE CHARGE IS TO BE FRAMED AGAINST ANY PERSON SO AS TO MOVE TH E PENAL PROVISIONS AGAINST HIM/HER, HE/SHE IS REQUIRED TO B E SPECIFICALLY MADE AWARE OF THE CHARGES TO BE LEVELED AGAINST HIM /HER. 14. HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS - (2016) 73 TAXMANN.COM 248 (SC) WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE QUASHING THE PENALTY B Y THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HONBLE HIGH COURT ON GROUND OF UNSPECIF IED NOTICE HAS HELD AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 9 SECTION 274, READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C), OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - PENALTY - PROCEDURE FOR IMPOSITION OF (CONDI TIONS PRECEDENT) - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - TRIBUNAL, RE LYING ON DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY [2013] 359 1TR 565/218 TAXMAN 423/35 TAXMANN.COM 250, ALLO WED APPEAL OF ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 (1 )(C) WAS BAD IN LAW, AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271 (1 )(C) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED, I.E., WHETHER FOR C ONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME - HIGH COURT HELD THAT MATTER WAS COVERED BY AFORESAID DECISION OF DIVISION BENCH AND, THEREFORE, THERE WA S NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FOR DETERMINATI ON - WHETHER SINCE THERE WAS NO MERIT IN SLP FILED BY REVENUE, S AME WAS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED - HELD, YES [PARA 2] [IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE] 15. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HELD AS UNDER :- 21. THE RESPONDENT HAD CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING O F THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF THE AC T, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF T HE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY 359 ITR 565 (KAR) AND OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE AO WOULD BE BAD IN LAW IF IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIM B OF SECTION 271(1) (C) THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIAT ED UNDER I.E. WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAD FOLLOWED THE ABOVE JUDGMENT IN THE S UBSEQUENT ORDER IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. SSA'S EMERAL D MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMAN.COM 241 (KAR) , THE APPEAL AGAINST WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA I N SLP NO. 11485 OF2016 BY ORDER DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2016. 16. FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS RENDERED IN THE CASES O F CIT VS. SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS AND PR. CIT VS. SAHARA INDIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. (SUPRA) BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 10 AND HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT WHEN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO IS BAD IN LAW BEING VAG UE AND AMBIGUOUS HAVING NOT SPECIFIED UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) ARE NOT SUSTAIN ABLE. 16. IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE, FOLLO WING THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND HON BLE HIGH COURT DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS, WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INITIATING PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF INVALI D SATISFACTION AND ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS NOTICE ISSUED U /S 271(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 274 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE S OF LAW, HENCE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, QUESTION FRAMED IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE AND PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTA INED BY THE LD.CIT (A) IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 3 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (KULDIP SING H) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 3 RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021. TS ITA NO.6436/DEL./2017 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-42, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.