SHRI JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Kishangarh

ITA 686/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99357 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Assessment record
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA PROP. M/S. RAJASTHAN MARBLE, MAKRANA ROAD, MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH CUKE VS. THE ITO KISHANGARH LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AJZPS 2979 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL. CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/09/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/10/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 27-05-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,20,959 /- U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF MARBLE SLAB & TIL ES UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. RAJASTHAN MARBLES. THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 2 COMPLETED BY THE AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 8-12-2009 DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,29,620/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 2,34,330/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SUNDRY CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 3,95,288/- IN THE NAME OF RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG. THE AO MADE ENQUIRY U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG AND THEY INTIMATED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY TRANSACTIONS W ITH THE ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO AFTER MA KING ENQUIRY CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE LIABILITY OFAMOUNT OF RS. 3 ,95,288/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG AS BOGUS WHICH HE HAS TREATED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME AND ADDED THE SAME BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS. 2.2 THE ABOVE DENIAL BY M/S. RAJASTHAN MARBLE UDYOG WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTE SH EET ENTRY DATED 27-11-2009. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE A SSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN REPLY IN THIS OFFICE ON 7-12-2009 S UBMITTING AS UNDER:- WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAST PROCEEDINGS REGARDING OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF RS. 3,95,288/- PAYABLE TO M/ S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG, KISHANGARH. AS PER LETTER COPY OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOGM, THEY ARE NOT HAVING ANY AMOUNT PAYABLE BY US TO THEM. WE COULD NOT UNDERSTA ND THE REASON FOR THE SAME. HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE SURRENDERING THE BALANCE OF RS. 39,52,288/- FOR TAX ATION TO PURCHASE PEACE AND AVOID ANY LITIGATION. ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 3 2.3 FROM THE ABOVE, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON RECO RD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A BOGUS LIABILITY IN HIS BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED ON RECORD THAT IN ACTUAL THERE IS NO SUCH LIABILITY IS IN EXISTENCE. WHEN THE DENI AL LETTER FILED BY M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH A SURREND ER NOTE SUBMITTING THAT THE AMOUNT IS BEING OFFERED FOR TAX ATION. 2.4 THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CREDIT BALANCE IN TH E NAME OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG CEASED TO EXIST AND THE AM OUNT OF RS. 3,95,288/- IS TREATED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME U /S 41(1)(A) OF I.T. ACT, HENCE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.2 THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED AND FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS THE AO LEVIE D THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,20,959/- U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT VIDE PENALTY ORD ER DATED 8-06-2010. 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO VIDE PARA 4.22 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 4.22 WHEN THE PRESENT CASE WAS EXAMINED IN VIEW OF THIS LEGAL POSITION, IT IS FOUND THAT APPEL LANT HAD CLAIMED BOGUS LIABILITY IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY CREDI TS BALANCE OF RS. 3,95,288/- IN THE RETURNED FILE BY HIM. IT W AS ONLY WHEN AO MADE ENQUIRY FROM RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG, THAT APPELLANT AGREED TO SURRENDER THIS AMOUNT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, AO HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, IN THE RETURN FILED BY HIM. IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE SURRENDER OF INCOME BY APPELLANT WAS VOLUNTARY BECAUSE THE SURRENDER WAS M ADE ONLY AFTER DETECTION OF THE SAME BY AO. UNDER THE P RESENT SCHEME OF THINGS ONLY A MINISCULE PERCENTAGE OF RET URNS ARE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IN ALL OTHER CASES, INCOM E DECLARED ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 4 BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) WITHOUT MAKI NG ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY. APPELLANT WAS WELL AWARE OF THIS A ND TRIED TO TAKE UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SCHEME OF THE DEPARTME NT. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT IF HIS CASE WAS NOT SELECTED FOR SCRUT INY, HE WOULD HAVE NEVER SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF S 3,95,2 88/-. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONDUCT A ND EXPLANATION OF APPELLANT WAS BONA FIDE, THEREFORE, THE CASE FALLS IN CATEGORY (B) OF PARA 4.19 AS MENTIONED ABO VE. THEREFORE, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS THEREFO RE, JUSTIFIED IN THIS CASE PURSUANT TO THE DECISION OF DHARMENDRA TEXTILES. 2.4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESS EE WAS HAVING OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 4,40,288/- PAYABLE TO ONE PAR TY I.E. M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG AND AFTER REDUCING THE PAYMENT MADE AT RS. 45,000/- THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE DURING THE YEAR, THE A SSESSEE HAD SHOWN CLOSING BALANCE AT RS. 3,95,288/- IN THE BALANCE SH EET. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFOR MATION U/S 133(6) WAS CALLED FOR BY THE AO FROM M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG WHO HAD STATED AS UNDER:- THERE ARE NO ANY KIND OF TRANSACTION WITH M/S. RAJASTHAN MARBLES, MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH DURING THE F.Y. 2006-07. SO THERE ARE NO ANY TYPE OF ACCOUNT WITH T HE CONCERN / FIRM. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO CONTR OL OVER THE AFFAIRS OF THIRD PARTY I.E. THE CREDITOR WHO IS NON-RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN AS T O HOW AND IN WHAT ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 5 MANNER IT HAD RECORDED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE AS SESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN ORDER TO B UY THE PEACE OF MIND THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE CLOSING BALANCE IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS HIS INCOME IN TERMS OF LETTER FILED ON 7-12-2009 DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN SPITE OF SUCH COOPERATIVE GESTURE OF THE ASSESSEE \, THE AO PROCEED TO INITIA TE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 1 ,20,959/- ON THE CARRIED FORWARD OPENING BALANCE OF CREDITOR FROM PR ECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 45,000/- TO M/S RAMESH MARBLE UDY OG (CREDITOR) THROUGH PAYEES ACCOUNT CHEQUE WHICH AS PER THAT PA RTY I.E. M/S RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HOWEVER, SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO WHO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE CLOSING BALANCE ONLY. THUS, THE FACT REMAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PART REPAYMENT TO THE CREDITOR DURING THE YEAR AND THE S AME WAS NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. THUS, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT A DUAL APPR OACH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY AO WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ON ONE H AND HE HAS ACCEPTED THE PAYMENT MADE (THROUGH CHEQUE) AND ON THE OTHER HAND HAS DOUBTED THE CLOSING BALANCE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THE SO C ALLED INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THIRD PARTY WITHOUT IN ANY MANNER MAK ING ANY VERIFICATION ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND TRUTHFULNESS OF SUCH INFO RMATION. THE AO ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 6 CANNOT PLAY BLOW HOT AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME BY ACCEPTING THE FACT OF PART REPAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR AND ON OTHER HA ND MAKING ADDITION U/S 41(1)(A) OF THE AMOUNT OF CLOSING BALANCE SHOWN PAYABLE TO THE ABOVEMENTIONED PARTY BY TREATING THE SAME AS NON-VE RIFIABLE AT HIS OWN SWEET WILL. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE. (1) NARANGS INTERNATIONAL HOTELS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT , CIRCLE- 1 (2), MUMBAI, 137 ITD 53 2. NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT , 249 ITR 125 (GUJ.) 3. SMT. DURGA DEVI SOMANI (ITA NO. 672/JP/2011 DATE D 31-10-2014), JAIPUR BENCH. 4. ASHISH GUPTA (ITA NO. 671/JP/2011 DATED 17-10- 2014), JAIPUR BENCH 5. ASHOK KUMAR KAMDAR (ITA NO. 684/JP/2011 SMC), ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE END, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR D ELETION OF PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,20,959/- U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 2.5 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS . 3.95 LACS CLAIMING THE SAME TO BE A BOGUS LIABILITY AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 7 THE ASSESSEE U/S 41(1)(A) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGA RD, FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE'S HAS SHOWN PARTICULARS OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG AMOUNTING TO RS. 3.95 LACS UND ER THE HEAD SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE PARTICULARS OF TRADE CREDI TS IN NAME OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG WERE THUS APPARENT AND VISIBLE ON THE FACE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE LEDGER ACCO UNT OF M/S. RAMESH MARBLE UDYOG (ABP 11), IT IS NOTED THAT THESE TRAD E CREDITS FORM PART OF THE OPENING BALANCE AT THE START OF THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THESE WERE NOT TRADE CREDITS WHICH WERE RECEIVED DURING THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, LEGALLY SPEAKING, IF TRADE CREDITS ARE TREATED AS CREDITS WHOSE LIAB ILITY HAS CEASED TO EXIST, THE RELEVANT ENTRIES EXISTS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D IF THEY ARE HELD AS BOGUS, THEY BELONG TO EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-0 6 AND NOT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FURTHER, IF THAT BE THE CASE, WHETHER THE SAID BOGUS LIABILITY CAN BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) CAN COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE AO AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THIS REGARD, REFERENC E IS INVITED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS BHOGILAL RAMJIBHAI ATARA IN TAX APPEAL NO. 588 OF 2013. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE FACTS ARE THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH SHOWED, BESIDES OTHERS, A SUM OF RS.37.52 LAC S BY WAY OF HIS DEBT. ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER INQUIRED INTO SUCH OUTSTANDIN G DUES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED DETAILS OF 27 DIFFE RENT CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL THESE SO CA LLED CREDITORS AND QUESTIONED THEM ABOUT THE ALLEGED CREDIT TO THE ASS ESSEE. IN DETAIL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT RECORD ED THAT NUMBER OF PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. MANY O F THEM STATED THAT THEY HAD NO CONCERN WITH THE ASSESSEE. SOME OF THEM CONV EYED THAT THEY DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FI NDINGS AND CONSIDERING THAT THE DEBTS WERE OUTSTANDING SINCE SEVERAL YEARS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 A ND ADDED THE ENTIRE SUM AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HELD THAT LIABILITIES HAVE CEASED TO EXIST WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE FACTS, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT HELD AS UNDER:- WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL. SECTION 41(1)OF THE ACT AS DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE THREE DEC ISIONS WOULD APPLY IN A CASE WHERE THERE HAS BEEN REMISSION OR C ESSATION OF LIABILITY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SUBJE CT TO THE CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN THE STATUTE BEING FULFILLED . ADDITIONALLY, SUCH CESSATION OR REMISSION HAS TO BE DURING THE PR EVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . IN THE PRESENT CASE, BOTH ELEMENTS ARE MISSING. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THERE WAS REMISSION OR CESSATION OF LIABILI TY THAT TOO DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 WHICH WAS THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS UNDOUBTEDLY A CURIOUS CASE. EVEN THE LIABILITY ITSELF SEEMS UNDER SERIOUS DOUBT . THE ASSESSING ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 9 OFFICER UNDERTOOK THE EXERCISE TO VERIFY THE RECORD S OF THE SO CALLED CREDITORS. MANY OF THEM WERE NOT FOUND AT ALL IN TH E GIVEN ADDRESS. SOME OF THEM STATED THAT THEY HAD NO DEALING WITH T HE ASSESSEE. IN ONE OR TWO CASES, THE RESPONSE WAS THAT THEY HAD NO DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE NOR DID THEY KNOW HIM. OF COURSE, THES E INQUIRIES WERE MADE EXPARTE AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AS SESSEE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO CONTEST SUCH FINDINGS. NEVERTHELESS, EVE N IF SUCH FACTS WERE ESTABLISHED THROUGH BI-PARTE INQUIRIES, THE LI ABILITY AS IT STANDS PERHAPS HOLDS THAT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OR REMISSION OF LIABILITY AND THAT THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT IN QUESTIO N CANNOT BE ADDED BACK AS A DEEMED INCOME UNDER SECTION 41(C) F THE A CT. THIS IS ONE OF THE STRANGE CASES WHERE EVEN IF THE DEBT ITSELF IS FOUND TO BE NON- GENUINE FROM THE VERY INCEPTION, AT LEAST IN TERMS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO CURE FOR IT. BE THAT AS IT M AY, INSOFAR AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE CONCERNED, TH E TRIBUNAL NOT HAVING MADE ANY ERROR, THIS TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED . IN OUR VIEW, THE REASONING OF THE ABOVE DECISION CA N BE SQUARELY APPLIED TO THE FACTS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS QUESTI ONED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIABILITY AND IN ABSENCE OF THE REQUISITE CO NFIRMATION, HAS HELD THE SAME TO BE A BOGUS LIABILITY. WHERE THE LIABILITY ITSELF HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A BOGUS LIABILITY, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF REMISSI ON OR CESSATION THEREOF. THUS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WHERE THE ADDITION ITSEL F IS DOUBTFUL UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1), THE SAME CANNOT FORM T HE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 2.7 FURTHER, WE HAVE NOTED THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN THE CASES OF SMT. DURGA DEVI SOMANI VS. ITO , SHRI ASHISH GUPTA VS. ITO AND SHRI ASHOK KUMAR KAMDAR VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHERE ITA NO. 686/JP/2011 SHRI JUGAL KISHROE SHARMA VS. ITO , KISHANGARH 10 SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN DETAIL AND WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE REASONING IN THE SAID DECISIONS. 2.8 SIMILAR ISSUE HAS ALSO BEEN ARISEN IN THE CAS E OF SMT. SUMITRA DEVI AGARWAL VS. ITO, KISHANGARH (ITA NO.687/JP/201 1 DATED 1-10- 2015) WHEREIN THIS BENCH OF ITAT HAS DELETED THE PE NALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. 2.9 THUS, IN CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CI RCUMSTANCES AND CASE LAWS AS RELIED ON BY ASSESSEE, WE DELETE THE PENALT Y OF RS 1,20,959/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/10/2 015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH FOE FLAG ;KNO (R.P.TOLANI) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09 /10/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI JUGAL KISHORE SHARMA, KISHANGAR H 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, KISHANGARH 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.686/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR