Anand Girdharilal Oswal, Jalgaon V. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

ITA 668/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1145 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income; Wrong claim; Revised return; Bonafide mistake

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 668/PN/2013 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ANAND GIRDHARILAL OSWAL, ANAND, 15, VARDHAMN NAGAR, OMKARESHWAR TEMPLE AREA, JALGAON-425002 PAN : AAAPO3710D ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), JALGAON / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 08-07-2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-09-2015 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NASHIK DATED 15- 01-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE : THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND IS A DISTRIBUTOR OF LPG AND SALE OF OTHER RELATED ACCESSOR IES LIKE LPG 2 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 STOVE, RUBBER TUBES, LIGHTERS ETC. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES VIZ: SALARY INCOME FROM MALEGAON GAS AG ENCY, INTEREST ON FDR AND SAVING ACCOUNTS, AGRICULTURAL INCOME A ND CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 31-07-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,37,18 0/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,10,000/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSE E FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10-12-2008 DECLARING INCOME O F RS.(-)4,36,289/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME RS.8,05,024/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DISCLOSED INCOME FROM LON G/SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS, ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES, FUTUR E AND OPTIONS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRU TINY. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 26-09- 2009. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTED IN THE SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIG ATION SYSTEMS LTD. ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 6,71,769/-. THE SAME WAS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AS LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN AND HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION THEREON U/S. 10(38) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ON CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE TRANSACTIONS, IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE CAPIT AL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SAID SHARES WAS IN FACT, SHORT TERM CAPITAL G AIN AND THUS, LIABLE FOR TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTER ALIA MADE ADDITION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL ON SALE OF SHARES IN THE INCOME RETURNED. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) FOR FURNIS HING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 29-06-2011 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.67,170/- U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 3. SHRI SUNIL GANOO APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, INADVE RTENTLY, THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYST EMS LTD. AS LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED LONG TERM, AS WELL AS, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AND FUTURE AND OPTIONS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE REALIZED HIS MISTAKE AND POINTED OUT THIS ER ROR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTE R, THE COPY OF WHICH IS AT PAGE 72 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSING O FFICER WITHOUT MENTIONING THE FACT THAT THE MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF MADE ADDITION, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT OF FACTS HAD CATEG ORICALLY MENTIONED ABOUT THE LETTER HIGHLIGHTING THE MISTAKE. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN NOT CONS IDERING THE FACT THAT MISTAKE WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF. THE MISTAKE IN COMPUTING GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE AND THERE WAS NO DE LIBERATE ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO FURNISH INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OR SUPPRESS IN HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE D ETAILS OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE MIS TAKE WAS IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS AND AS SUCH IT IS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYE D FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DELETING THE PENALTY. IN SU PPORT OF THE SUBMISSIONS, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I. CIT VS. MILES CABLE INDUSTRIES, 261 ITR 675 (GUJ); II. UDAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. CIT, 291 ITR 318 (CAL); III. CIT VS. UMASHANKAR SARAF, 139 ITR 842 (BOM); IV. CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC); AND V. PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. CIT AND ANOTHER ; 348 ITR 306 (SC). 4 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI B.C. MALAKAR REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON 31-07-2008, THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE GAIN ARISING FRO M SALE OF SHARES FROM M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. AS LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN. AGAIN, AT THE TIME OF FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10-12-2008, THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLAIMED LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT WAS DELIBERATE ACT OF ASSESSEE TO SUPPRES S THE INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. DR VEHE MENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ASSESSEE FOR MAKING WRONG CLAIM ON THE SALE OF SHARES. DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSACTED IN THE SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AD EARNED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.6,71,769/-. APART FROM THE SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD., THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEALING IN THE SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES, AS WELL AS, FUTURE AND OPTIONS. A PERUSA L OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK SHOWS, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED SHORT TERM AS WE LL AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN/LOSS ON THE SALE OF SHARES. IT IS IN RESPECT OF SHARES OF M/S. JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD. THAT WERE HELD FOR A PER IOD OF LESS THAN 12 MONTHS, THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE GAIN ARISING T HEREON AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND EXEMPT FROM TAX U/S. 10(38) OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SHARES TRANSACTED ALONG WITH THE DATES OF PURCHASE/SALE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. NO MIS TAKE OR ERROR 5 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE REVENUE IN THE SAID INFORMAT ION FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS THAT THE A SSESSEE COMMITTED MISTAKE WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM/SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN. THE REVENUE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FURN ISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TREATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN. WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE MISTAKE IS BONAFID E AND UNINTENTIONAL. THE REVENUE HAS NOT DENIED THAT THE DET AILS OF SHARE TRANSACTIONS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE ARE CORRECT. THE AS SESSEE HAS ONLY ERRED IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES. 6. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UDAYAN MUKHERJEE VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THERE IS A DISTINC TION BETWEEN FURNISHING OF WRONG PARTICULARS AND MAKING A WRONG CALCULATIO N ON THE BASIS OF THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED. IF THE PARTICULARS ARE FURNISHED THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF CONCEALMENT. A MISTAKEN CALCULATION IS DISTINCT FROM CONCEALMENT. A MISTAKEN INDEXATION WOULD NO T AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF WRONG PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALMENT WITHIN TH E SCOPE OF SECTION 271(1)(C). 7. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHE RE THERE IS NO FINDINGS THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RE TURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACC URATE PARTICULARS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 8. A GLANCE AT THIS PROVISION WOULD SUGGEST THAT I N ORDER TO BE COVERED, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICU LARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURN ISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE PRESENT IS NOT A CAS E OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. THAT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE EITHER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR REVENUE SUGGESTED THAT BY MAKING INCORR ECT CLAIM FOR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICON, THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTICULAR' IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS (IN PLURAL SENS E); THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM, OR THE SEPARATE ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE WORD 'PARTICULARS' USED IN THE SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEA NING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THE P RESENT CASE THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT OR INACCURATE. IT IS NOT AS IF ANY STATEMENT MADE OR ANY DETAIL SUPPL IED WAS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT. HENCE, AT LEAST, PRIMA FACIE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. T HE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT 'SUBMITTING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW F OR THE EXPENDITURE ON INTEREST WOULD AMOUNT TO GIVING INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS OF SUCH INCOME'. WE DO NOT THINK THAT SUCH CAN BE THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CONCERNED WORDS. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . IN CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN BINDAL [2009) 9 SCC 589, WHERE THIS COURT WAS CONSIDERING THE SAME PROVISION , THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SATISFIED THAT A PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THIS COURT REFERRED TO ANOTHER DECISION OF THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PRO CESSORS [2008) 13 SCC 369 AS ALSO, THE DECISION IN UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJASTHAN SPG. & WVG. MILLS [2009) 13 SCC 448 AND REITERATED IN PARA GRAPH 13 THAT (PAGE 13 OF 317 ITR): '13. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 271(1)(C), CONDITIONS STATED THEREIN MUST EXIST.' 9. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IT MUST BE SHOWN T HAT THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) MUST EXIST BEFORE THE PENAL TY IS IMPOSED. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT, WHERE THE ASSESS EE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS AR E FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT [2007) 6 SCC 329, THIS COURT EXPLAINED THE TERMS 'CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME' AND 7 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 'FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THEREIN THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C), MENS REA WAS NECESSARY, AS ACCORDING TO THE COURT, THE WORD 'INA CCURATE' SIGNIFIED A DELIBERATE ACT OR OMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. IT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDED FOR A DISCRETIONARY JURISDICTION UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY, INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO UGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF SUCH CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME , BUT IT MAY NOT EXCEED THREE TIMES THEREOF. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE TERM 'INACCURATE PARTICULARS' WAS NOT DEFINED ANYWHERE IN THE ACT AN D, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT FURNISHING OF AN ASSESSMENT OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY MAY NOT BY ITSELF BE FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT HIS EXPLANATION IS NOT ONLY NOT BONA FIDE BUT ALL THE F ACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY HIM. IT WAS THEN HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION MUST BE PRECE DED BY A FINDING AS TO HOW AND IN WHAT MANNER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHE D THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE COURT ULTIMATELY WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE ELEMENT OF MENS REA WAS ESSENTIAL. IT WAS ONLY ON THE POINT OF MENS REA THAT THE JUDGMENT IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT WAS UPSET . IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, AFTER QUOTING FROM SECTION 271 EXTENSIVELY AND ALSO CONSIDERING SECTION 271(1)(C), THE COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT SINCE SECTION 271(1)(C) INDICATED T HE ELEMENT OF STRICT LIABILITY ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE CONCEALMENT OR FO R GIVING INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE FILING RETURN, THERE WAS NO NECES SITY OF MENS REA. THE COURT WENT ON TO HOLD THAT THE OBJECTIVE BEHIND THE ENACTMENT OF SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH EXPLANATIONS INDICATED WITH THE SAID SECTION WAS FOR PROVIDING REMEDY FOR LOSS OF REVENUE AND SUCH A PEN ALTY WAS A CIVIL LIABILITY AND, THEREFORE, WILFUL CONCEALMENT IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR ATTRACTING CIVIL LIABILITY AS WAS THE CASE IN T HE MATTER OF PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 276C OF THE ACT. THE BASIC REASON WHY DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT WAS OVERRULED BY THIS COURT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, WAS THAT ACCORDING TO THIS COURT THE EFFECT AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SECTION 271(1)(C) AND SECTION 276C OF THE ACT WAS LOST SIGHT OF IN THE CASE OF DILIP N. SHROF F VS. JOINT CIT HOWEVER, IT MUST BE POINTED OUT THAT IN UNION OF INDIA VS. D HARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS, NO FAULT WAS FOUND WITH THE REASONING I N THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT, WHERE THE COURT EXPLAINED THE MEANING OF THE TERMS 'CONCEAL' AND 'INACCURATE'. IT WAS ONLY THE U LTIMATE INFERENCE IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT TO THE EFFECT THAT ME NS REA WAS AN ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT FOR THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) THAT THE DECISION IN DILIP N. SHROFF VS. JOINT CIT WAS OVERRULED. 8 ITA NO. 668/PN/2013, A.Y. 2008-09 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS WITH RESPECT TO THE PURC HASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED IN COMPUTING T HE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SHARES. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS O F THE CASE AND CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS A CASE FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ORDER LEVYING PENALTY IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 07 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 RK *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. ' / THE CIT-II, NASHIK 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE