M/s. Oriental Pathways (Nagpur) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6460/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97085 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 6460/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ORIENTAL PATHWAYS (NAGPUR) PVT. LTD., VS ACIT, CIRCLE-13(1), 21/48, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, C.R. BUILDING, MALCHA MARG, I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110021 NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT B Y: SHRI K.V.S.R. KRISHNA, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 17.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.8.2015 O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, DELHI DATED 30.09.2013 IN APPEAL NO.43 /12-13 FOR AY 2009-10 BY WHICH PENALTY ORDER DATED 30.5.2012 PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) HAS BEEN UPHELD CONFI RMING THE PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS FIVE GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL BUT THE CRUX OF THE CASE IS CONTAINED IN GRO UND NO. 1 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 2 1. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF THE A.O. LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS.11,60, 011/-. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AND HAS TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE TO THE MAIN GROUND NO. 1 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 2. THE APPELLANT CONTEND THAT THE EXPLANATION PROVIDED IS BONAFIDE AND CORRECT. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE APPELLANT HAS MADE A CLAIM FOR WRONG OR BOGUS EXPENSES. THE E XPENDITURE CLAIMED IS ALLOWABLE UNDER THE INCOME TAX PROVISION S. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF 350 AND AL LOWED IN 5 EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. 3. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO GIVEN EXPLANATION THAT IN VIEW OF THE AS 26, THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WERE WR ITTEN OFF IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT THERE WAS NO REFERENCE BY THE TAX AUDITORS FOR CLAIM U/S 35D. UN DER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE PENA LIZED. 4. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. CIT(A) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND DECISION BASED ON SUCH CASE LAWS IS WRONG AND BAD. THE PENALTY LEVIED SHOULD BE DELETED . 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT HE MAY BE ALLOWED TO AD D, AMEND, ALTER, MODIFY OR FOREGO ANY OF THE GROUNDS A T THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN ALONG WITH AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHEREIN FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2009, THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF AGGREGA TING TO RS.42,66,237/-. THE ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 3 ASSESSEE CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT THAT THE TREATM ENT IS BASED ON THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 26 WITH REGARD TO IMPUGNED PREL IMINARY EXPENSES WHEREBY THE ENTIRE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES ARE REQUIRE D TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE P&L ACCOUNT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE START ED COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS OPERATIONS. THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIED ITS CL AIM AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WERE WRITTEN OFF IN T HE P&L ACCOUNT BY FOLLOWING AS 26. THE AO DISMISSED EXPLANATION AND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER DATED 30.11.2011 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED ONLY 1/5 TH OF THE EXPENSES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AN D REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 34,12,800 WAS ADDED BACK TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT AGIT ATING THE ISSUE FURTHER BEFORE HIGHER FORUMS. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEA RING, THE AO IMPOSED IMPUGNED PENALTY OF RS.11,60,011 BY HOLDING THAT IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.34,12,800 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE O F EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF U/S 35D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BE FORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT REMAINED EMPTY HANDED AS THE CIT(A) A LSO DISMISSED EXPLANATION AND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE PENAL TY BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 4 ORDER. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL I N THIS SECOND APPEAL WITH THE MAIN GROUND AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. LEVYING P ENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS.11,60,011/-. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THERE I S NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS WRONG AND BAD IN LAW AND HAS TO BE CANCEL LED. LD. AR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS BONAFIDE, CORRECT AND ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE I T IS NOT A CASE WHERE APPELLANT HAS MADE A CLAIM FOR WRONG OR BOGUS EXPEN SES. LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS ALLOWAB LE UNDER THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM IS SUBJECT TO THE PR OVISION OF 350 AND ALLOWED IN 5 EQUAL INSTALLMENTS. THUS, THE ALLOWABILITY OF E NTIRE CLAIM WAS A DEBATABLE ISSUE AND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED ASSESSMENT O RDER, THEN THE PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY IMPOSABLE. 6. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS GIVEN AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT IN VIEW OF THE AS 26, THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 5 WERE WRITTEN OFF IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND T HAT IN THE TAX AUDIT, THERE WAS NO REFERENCE BY THE TAX AUDITORS FOR CLAIM U/S 35D. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZE D U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT FOR IMPOSING P ENALTY, THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. PASSED IN ITA NO. 7/201 0 DATED 24.5.2010 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOU SE COOPERS PVT. LTD. (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) (PARA 13) AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS BRAHMPUTRA CONSORTIUM LTD. 2012 348 ITR 339 . LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED ALL DETAILS PERTAINING TO WR ITTEN OFF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES IN THE AUDITED REPORT FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN O F INCOME WHEREIN PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE P&L ACC OUNT AND IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS ITEM F, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT AS PER A-26, THE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES ARE FULLY RECOGNISED AS EXPENSES. LD. AR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AO DID NOT AGREE TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LLOWED ONLY 1/5 TH OF THE CLAIM AND REMAINING PART OF THE CLAIM WAS ALLOWED IN FOUR EQUAL INSTALMENTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT EITHER THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS IN COME OR HAS CONCEALED ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 6 PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME IN ANY MANNER. LD. AR AL SO POINTED OUT THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND INCORRECT OR BOG US BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE, IF PART OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO, THAT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LD. AR FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE RATIO OF THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS BRAHMPUTRA CONSORTIUM LTD. (SUPRA). REPLYING TO TH E ABOVE, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMIT TED THAT IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 35D OF THE ACT, THE ENTIRE PR ELIMINARY EXPENSES ARE ALLOWABLE IN FIVE EQUAL INSTALMENTS AND THE ASSESSE E MADE CLAIM OF ENTIRE PRELIMINARY EXPENSES IN THE YEAR WHEREIN THE ASSESS EE STARTED BUSINESS OPERATIONS WHICH WAS THE WRONG CLAIM, THEREFORE, PE NALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. DR FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND INCORRECT OR BOGUS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN FIVE INSTALMENTS DURING FIVE ASSESS MENT YEARS STARTING FROM AY 2009-10 I.E. THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL. 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND VIGILANT PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD INTER ALIA QUANTUM ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 7 ORDER OF THE AO, PENALTY ORDER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SPREAD OVER 28 PAGES, AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRI TTEN OFF IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNT IN PARA F, IT HAS BEE N MENTIONED THAT AS PER AS-26, PRELIMINARY EXPENSES ARE FULLY RECOGNISED AS EXPENS ES (PB PAGE 14 & 21). THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE FORM OF AUDITE D REPORT ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CLAIM OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRITTEN OFF WAS EITHER BOGU S OR INCORRECT. PER CONTRA, ADMITTEDLY AND UNDISPUTEDLY, THE CLAIM OF PRELIMINA RY EXPENSES WAS ALLOWED BY THE AO IN FIVE EQUAL INSTALMENTS STARTING FROM AY 2 009-10 WHICH ALSO SHOWS THAT 1/5 TH PART OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND REMAINING PART HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO IN FOUR EQUAL INSTALMENTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEARS. NOW, UNDER ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS VIVID TH AT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED IN THE FIRST YEAR VIZ. AY 2009-10 A ND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED IN FIVE AYS STARTING FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION. HENCE, IN THIS SITUATION, WE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS AND JU DGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BRAHMPUTRA CONS ORTIUM LTD. WHEREIN DISMISSING THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE, I T WAS HELD THAT THE AO DID NOT CONTRADICT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT EXCESS CLA IM WAS AN INADVERTENT ERROR ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 8 AND THE EXCESS CLAIM WAS NOT ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE AS SESSEE, THEREFORE, DELETION OF PENALTY WAS HELD AS JUSTIFIED. 8. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SU PRA) IN PARA 12, THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- 10. IT WAS TRIED TO BE SUGGESTED THAT SECTION 14A OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE AC T. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE SHA RES DID NOT FORM THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS, THEREFOR E, REITERATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY REACHED THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCE SSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWING THAT THEY ARE INCORRECT; IT AMOU NTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS TRIED TO BE ARGUED TH AT THE FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF THE TWO FO RMS; (I) AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRESSED FRAUDULENTLY; (II ) AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY (OR IN AN EXAGGERATED AM OUNT) CLAIMED, AND BOTH TYPES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXAB LE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, BOTH TYPES AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ONE'S INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCU RATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN THE RETURN O R NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, W HICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVEN UE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENAL TY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN I N CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTE D BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) . THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 9 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT A MOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THEIR LORDSHIPS SPEAKING F OR THE APEX COURT FURTHER HELD THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EX PENDITURE, WHICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE APEX COURT WAS CAUTIOUS ENOUGH IN THIS SITUATION THAT WHEN THE CONTENTION OF THE R EVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IN THE CASE OF EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTE D BY THE AO FOR ANY REASON, THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT WHICH IS NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. COMING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EITHER FOUND INCORRECT OR BOGUS AND THE SAME WAS AL LOWED IN FIVE EQUAL INSTALMENTS, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED CLAIM OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF PRELIMINARY EXPENSES WRIT TEN OFF IN THE P&L ACCOUNT SUPPORTED BY NOTES TO ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT FULLY A CCEPTED BY THE AO AND THE AO ALLOWED ONLY 1/5 TH OF THE CLAIM, THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR H AS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME WHICH MAY ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AN D THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF ITA NO.6460/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2009-10 10 HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B RAHMPUTRA CONSORTIUM LTD. (SUPRA) COMES TO RESCUE AND SUPPORTS THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS NOT IMPOSABLE ON THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. ACC ORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELET E THE PENALTY. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.08.2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28TH AUGUST 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR