The ITO, 3(3), Indore V. Shri Nathu Singh Kalota, Indore

ITA 712/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0394 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S SOLANKI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Depreciation; Bonafide belief; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Agreed addition; Benefit of exemption; Revised return; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 2(14); 10B; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO.712/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2008-09 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 3(3), INDORE. SHRI NATHU SINGH KALOTA, VILLAGE KANADIA, VS. INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. DVLPS9828B APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. S S OL ANKI, C. A. DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 0 6 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30. 0 7 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 27.09.2013 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2011, IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INTERES T INCOME AT RS. 347/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 70,000 /-. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTED I NCOME AT RS. 94,75,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOL D ONE AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE KANADIA FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 94,75,000/-. HOWEVER, THE MARKET VALUE OF TH E SAID LAND WAS RS. 1,32,58,000/- FOR STAMP VALUATION PURPOSES AS PER PREVAILING GUIDELINES FOR REGISTRATION ISSUED BY DI STRICT COLLECTOR FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WAS CONFIRMED BY TH E PARTY THAT HE HAS SOLD THE LAND FOR RS. 94,75,000/- TO M/S. SP H AND M/S. SPH HAS DIRECTLY SOLD THIS LAND TO M/S. GWALIO R -: 3: - 3 ENTERTAINMENT WORLD PRIVATE LIMITED. THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED THAT THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF CITY OF INDORE. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO S UBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM BY EVIDENCING A CERTIFICATE FROM COLLECTO R OR TAHSILDAR. DESPITE THE AMPLE AND ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY , THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SUCH CERTIFICATE. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LAND IS WITHIN 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF CITY OF INDORE. HENCE, THE LAND WAS TREATED AS CAPITAL ASSET AND LO NG TERM CAPITAL WAS DETERMINED. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 9,47,500/-AND AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTI ON U/S 54F, NET CAPITAL GAIN WORKED OUT TO RS. 64,62,149/- . THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 64,62,139/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 347/-. NO APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) HAS BEEN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FOUND THAT THERE WAS DEFAULT ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SUITABLE EXPLANAT ION FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED AND SHOW C AUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND AFTER GIVING SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E, THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 15 LAKHS U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. -: 4: - 4 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PENALTY ORDER, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. 4.1 IN THIS CASE BARE FACTS ARE THAT APPELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HE AND HIS FAMILY ARE ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY FOR DECADES AND THEY HAVE NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WHEN HE SOLD HI S AGRICULTURE LAND IN VILLAGE KANADIA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 94,75,000/-, HE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IS EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND IT WAS HIS BELIEF THAT SUCH LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS. THOUGH AO NEVER DISPROVED SUCH FACT OF AGRICULTURE LAND BEING WITHIN 8 KM, BUT IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION, APPELLANT CAME FORWARD A ND ACCEPTED ADDITION MADE BY AO AND PAID TAXES ON -: 5: - 5 THE CAPITAL GAIN WORKED OUT BY AO ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4.2 IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SINCE APPELLANT IS AGRICULTURIST WHO WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT ATTRACT ANY CAPITAL GAIN AND WHEN AO CALLED HIM AND EXPLAINED THE LAW, HE ACCEPTED THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING OUT OF SUCH CAPITAL GAIN AND PAID THE TAXES ON IT. THEREFORE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME COULD NOT BE IMPOSED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASON WITH APPELLANT TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH GAIN WAS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH I S EXEMPT FROM TAXATION AND AO NEVER PROVED OR ESTABLISHED THAT LAND WAS WELL WITHIN 8 KM OF MUNICIPAL LIMIT. AS A RESULT RELYING ON THE DECISI ONS IN CASES OF VIDE ON [2008] 301 ITR 260, MANJOOR AHMED [2011] 62 DTR 70 (ITAT, JODHPUR) AND H. A. SODHAN (GREATER HUF) 17 ITD 479 (ITAT, AHMEDABAD, B-BENCH)THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY OF RS.15 LAKHS -: 6: - 6 LEVIED IN THIS CASE IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 4. THE LD. SENIOR D.R. ARGUED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WAS AT RS. 1,32,58,000/- FOR STAMP PURPOSES AS PER THE PREVAILING GUIDELINES FOR REGISTRY. THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD THIS LAND FOR RS. 94,75,000/- TO M/S. SPH. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS FROM MUNICIPA L CITY OF INDORE. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFICATE THAT LAND IS WITHIN 8 KMS. FROM MUN ICIPAL LIMIT OF CITY OF INDORE. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPP ORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE CERTIFICATE THAT LAND IS WITHIN 8 KM S. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF CITY OF INDORE. THE ASSESSEE COU LD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CANCELLED THE PENALTY O NLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SALE ON AGRICULTURAL LAN D WOULD NOT ATTRACT CAPITAL GAIN AND WHENEVER HE WAS TOLD HE HA S PAID THE TAXES. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS CANCELLED BUT THE ASSESSEE -: 7: - 7 HAS NOT OBTAINED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT THE LAND IS BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED WI THIN 8 KMS. AND, THEREFORE, HE HAS PAID TAX AND IT WAS NOT DISP UTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FILED THE WRITTEN SYNOPSIS, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY IS ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURE FOR DECADES. THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WAS OWNER OF THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND SINCE PAST 30 YEARS AND WERE REGULARLY DOING AGRICULTURAL OPERATION SINCE THEN. IN F.Y 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE SOLD PART OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS AN AGRICULTURALIST AND HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME . HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS EXEMPT. WHEN HE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND HE THOUGHT THAT CAPITAL GAIN ON S ALE -: 8: - 8 OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT ATTRACTED AND HE DID NO T FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN. HE WAS PARTLY CORRECT IN ASSUMING THAT SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AS UNDER SECTI ON 2(14) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE DEFINITION O F CAPITAL ASSET HAS BEEN GIVEN AND IN THAT DEFINITI ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT INCLUDED IN CAPITAL ASSET IF IT IS NOT SITUATED IN AN AREA GIVEN IN THE ACT. THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND I S ATTRACTED IF THE SAME IS NOT SITUATED IN THE AREA D EFINED IN THE ACT. AS PER THE GENERAL PERCEPTION OF THE AGRICULTURIST, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT SINCE THE SALE IS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE. ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S 148, P.A NO. WAS OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY PA NO. AS HE WAS NOT OBLIGED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THAT. -: 9: - 9 THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS. 347/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 94,75,000/- IN THE SAID RETURN. THE AO ASSESSED THE EXEMPT INCOME AS INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE T O OBTAIN THE CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE LO CAL LIMITS OF INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. HOWEVER, TO AVOID LITIGATION, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD AND ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND PAID TAXES , THEREON. THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN CARE TO VERIFY THAT THE LAND W AS WITHIN 8 KM OR NOT BUT HE SIMPLY BY RELYING ON THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) IMPOSED THE PENALTY WHICH IS ILLEGAL AND WRONG. THAT THE LEARNED AO IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 15,00,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- -: 10: - 10 IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. LEARNED CIT(A) APPRECIATING THE FACT OF THE CASE AN D CASE LAWS CITED, LEVIED DELETED THE PENALTY. WE GIVE SOME CITATIONS OF VARIOUS HONBLE COURTS TO JUSTIFY THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) WAS WRONGLY IMPOSED:- LEVIABILTY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT - ASSESSEE RETURNING CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND IN ITS ORIGINAL RETURN BUT WAY OF REVISED RETURN CLAIMING EXEMPTION FROM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ADVICE OF TEHSIL DAR AND MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURE LAND. THE ONLY DISPUTE BEING WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED EXEMPTION CLAIMED OR NOT, THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT ATTRACTING PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) - TRIBUNAL HAVING DELETED PENALTY, NO QUESTION OF LAW AROSE- -: 11: - 11 CIT V. VIDE ON 301 ITR 260(DELHI ITC) (IN THIS CASE, HONBLE ITAT REMANDED THE MATTER TO AO, WHEN MATTER WAS TAKEN UP BY THE AO ON REMAND THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SURRENDERED ITS CLAIM BY NOT PRESSING THE MATTER ANY FURTHER). PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C)- CONCEALMENT- BONA FIDE BELIE F THAT INCOME NOT TAXABLE- ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS W ELL AS INTEREST INCOME FROM THE BANK- HE EXPLAINED THAT INITIALLY HE WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND DID NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY CAPITAL GAIN- ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN WITHIN PRESCRIB ED TIME BEFORE ANY QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO FOR SCRUTINIZING HIS RETURN- FURTHER, IT IS ONLY TH E INTEREST INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN HELD TO BE TAXABLE AND NOT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND- THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE-AO HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPLANATION OF -: 12: - 12 THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE OR THAT HE HAS MADE A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL THE PARTICULARS OF HI S INCOME-LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) NOT JUSTIFIED. MANJOOR AHMED V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2011) 141 ITJ (JD) 646 : (2011) 62 DTR 70 (ITAT,JODHPUR BENCH) PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C)- CONCEALMENT-CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND NOT SHOWN IN RETURN- QUESTION WHETHER LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS HIGHLY DEBATABLE- CIT(A) JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY. INCOME TAX OFFICER V. H.A. SODHAN(GREATER- HUF) 17 ITD 479 IT AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C)-CONCEALMENT-WRONG CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SS. 54B AND 80T AND INACCURATE VALUATION OF LAND- ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS CONFUSED AS REGARDS VALUE OF LAND AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1974 AND SUBMITTED THE ESTIMATED VALUE-INCORRECT COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80T FIRST AND THEN RELIEF U/S 54B CANNOT ATTRACT PENALTY-FURTHER, ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLAIMED THAT -: 13: - 13 CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL INCOME-MISTAKE OR WRONG CLAIM CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR ATTRACTING PENAL PROVISION-WRONG CLAIM CAN BE RECTIFIED-PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON ANY COUNT. RATILAL ASHABHAI ( HUF) VS. ITO, (1999) 63 TTJ (AHD ) 595: 68 ITD 187 I.T.A.T. AHMEDABAD B BENCH PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C), EXPL.-CONCEALMENT- BONA FIDE EXPLANATION-SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE GIVES A BONA FIDE EXPLANATION AND UNRESERVEDLY DISCLOSES ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME AND THE EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUN D TO BE FALSE, PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) IS NOT EXIGIBLE, EVEN IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE- CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF LAND WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN-EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SINCE I T IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS CHARGEABLE TO TAX-AO DI D NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION AND INCLUDED THE -: 14: - 14 CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF SAID LAND IN TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO LEVIED PENALT Y U/S 271(L)(C)- LEVY OF PENALTY NOT JUSTIFIED-ASSESS EE HAD FURNISHED ALL FACTS MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS BEFORE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS-FACT THAT THE AO ALLOWED BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54B IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN QUESTION IMPLIES THAT THIS LAND WAS TREATED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND- EXEMPTION U/S 54B WHICH WAS ALLOWED ON PURCHASE OF THIS LAND HAS NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN BUT THE AO HAS INVOKED CL.(I) OR (II) OF SECTION 54B(1) BY REDUCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION WHILE IN THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE-THUS, DEPARTMENT HAVING ITSELF TREATED THE LAND IN QUESTION AS AGRICULTURAL LAND ON ITS PURCHASE BY ALLOWING THE CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B AND ALSO GIVEN EFFECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B EVEN WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN, ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE SAI D -: 15: - 15 TO BE FALSE OR NOT BONA FIDE- MOREOVER, THE LAND WA S LEASED OUT AND USED FOR GROWING MUSHROOM BY THE LESSEE-IT WAS CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN REVENUE RECORDS AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE CERTIFICATE GIVEN BY COMMR. OF AGRICULTURE AND THE HORTICULTURE COMMR. TO THE EFFECT THAT MUSHROOM PRODUCTION IS AN AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY-THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION ARISING UNDER EXPL. 1 TO SECTION 271(L)(C) AND PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY DELETED. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. MALHOTRA MUKESH SATPAL (2008) 113 TTJ(PUNE) 401: (2008) 115 ITD 467 ITAT, PUNE A BENCH PENALTY CAN NOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT- CIRCUMSTANCES MUST REASONABLY POINT TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR HAS DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS -: 16: - 16 TRIBUNAL REFERRED NO MATERIAL TO INDICATE THAT THE OVER WRITING IN DAILY COLLECTION SHEETS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR UNDER HIS AUTHORITY- HENCE NOTHING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED A PART OF HIS INCOME- PENALTY NOT LEVIABL E- SOHANLAL G SANGHI V. ADDL CIT 125R 184 (M.P.) MERE NON EXPLANATION OR FALSE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS CERTAIN AMOUNTS ADDED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE PENALIZED UNLESS STATUTE PLACED BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS- REVENUE, BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY, SHOULD HAVE BEFORE IT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATELY. BHAGINATH PRASAD BILGAIYA V. CIT 139R 902 (M.P) -: 17: - 17 INITIAL BURDEN IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PRIMA FACIE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME- ONLY THEREAFTER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SOUGHT AND CONSIDERED- EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(L)(C) DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE DEPTT JUST TO ISSU E NOTICE FOR GIVING FALSE EXPLANATION AND PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE- CIT V. GANESH PRASAD BADRI PRASAD & CO. 231R 951 (M.P.) ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE INCOME AFTER PERSISTENT QUERIES BY AO- HOWEVER REVISED RETURNS HAVE BEEN REGULARIZED BY REVENUE- EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME TO BUY PEACE AND TO COME OUT OF VEXED LITIGATION COULD BE TREATED AS BONA FIDE TRIBUNAL JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING PENALTY- CIT V. SURESH CHAND MITTAL 241R 124 (M.P) AGREED ADDITION TO INCOME TO PURCHASE PEACE OR FOR OTHER SIMILAR REASONS CANNOT AMOUNT TO AN ADMISSION CONSTITUTING EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT IN -: 18: - 18 PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME, MERE SURRENDER OF INCOME WOULD NOT ITSELF JUSTIFY IMPOSITION OF PENALTY- PENALTY DELETED- CIT V. PUNJAB TYRES 162 ITR 517(M.P.) FOLLOWED ADDL CIT V. BHARTIYA BHAMDAM 122 ITR 622(M.P.) CIT V. PRADEEP KUMAR GANEDIWAL 253 ITR 361 (M.P) CLAIM FOR CERTAIN DEDUCTION DISALLOWED AND PENALTY LEVIED. HOWEVER TRIBUNAL DID NOT FIND THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED AT ALL, OR THAT IT WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A FALSE CLAIM- IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FINDINGS, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) NOT JUSTIFIED- -: 19: - 19 NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN V. CIT 174R 479(M.P) MERELY BECAUSE CLAIM FOR CERTAIN EXPENSES IS REJECTED, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT CLAIM WAS FALSE OR INACCURATE TO THE ASSESSEES KNOWLEDGE OR WAS AS A RESULT OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE- PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED- J.K.JAJOO V. CIT 181R 41 (M.P) FOR WRONG CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ,PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED- CIT V. SKYLINE AUTO PRODUCTS P. LTD. 271R 335 (M.P) MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE TREATED CERTAIN SUM AS A BUSINESS LOSS, WHEREAS THE REVENUE TREATED IT AS A CAPITAL LOSS, THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 271(L)(C) WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED- CIT V. PRAVEEN B. GADE, 244R 463(M.P) -: 20: - 20 MERELY FALSITY OR REJECTION OF ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WOULD NOT ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT- FOR IMPOSING PENALTY, THE LAW REQUIRES FURTHER PROOF OF CONCEALMENT OR OF DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS- CIT V. NAVNITLAL MEHTA 77 ITR 990(M.P.) PENALTY BASED ON CASH CREDITS - NOT VALID IN ABSENC E OF FURTHER FINDING THAT CREDITS REPRESENTED ASSESSE ES INCOME. APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 IS LIMITED ONLY T O ASSESSMENTS AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT- CIT V. BHURAMAL MAUK CHANDL30R 129 (CAL) IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS MATTER MUST BE CONSIDERED AFRESH FROM AN ANGLE DIFFERENT FROM ASSESSMENT ASSESSEE MUST BE FOUND TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS NOT ONLY NOT BONAFIDE BUT ALL T HE FACTS RELATING TO THE SOME AND MATERIAL TO THE INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY HIM- -: 21: - 21 T. ASHOK PAI V. CIT 292 ITR LL(SC) IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(L) (C), THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE- MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) IS NOT ATTRACTED, IF THE CONTENTION OF REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C) IN EVER Y CASE WHERE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEES NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REASON- THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF LEGISLATURE- CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS P. LTD. 322R 158 (SC) ASSESSEE BY MISTAKE CLAIMED A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PROVISION TOWARDS PAYMENT OF GRATUITY IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, EVEN THOUGH TAX AUDIT REPORT INDICATED THAT SUCH PROVISION WAS NOT ALLOWABLE- AO -: 22: - 22 INITIATED PENALTY FOR CONCEALING INCOME- THIS IS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED- PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPER P. LTD V. CIT 348R 306(SC) DEPTT MUST ESTABLISH THAT THE RECEIPT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTES INCOME- APART FROM FALSITY OF ASSESSEE S EXPLANATION DEPTT MUST HAVE COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE FROM WHICH IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME- PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED SOLELY ON T HE BASIS OF REASONS GIVEN IN ASSESSEMENT ORDER- CIT V. KHODEY ESWARA & SONS 83TR 369(SC) EXPLANATION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE REJECTED NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE FURNISHED. ASSESSEE DISCHARGED ONUS - FRAUD OR WILLFUL NEGLECT COULD NOT BE EQUATE D WITH ABSENCE OF PROOF ACCEPTABLE TO THE DEPTT -: 23: - 23 PENALTY IMPOSED WAS CONCEALED- BALDEO PRASAD PANWALE V. ITOIO TTJ 213 (ITAT INDORE) SAME :- (II) KISHINCHAND V. ITO 10 TTJ 38 (ITAT INDORE) BABULAL SHRIVASTAV V. ITO 10TTJ 92 (ITAT INDORE) ASSESSEE EVEN IF MADE AN EXCESSIVE CLAIM BY FILING A RETURN, NO PENALTY WAS LEVAIBLE BECAUSE FOR CLAIMIN G EXCESS CLAIM ITSELF IT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF CONCEALED INCOME- PENALTY CANCELLED- ACIT V. BETUL ZILA SAHAKARI BANK 35CH 088 (ITAT INDORE) ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN HAD SHOWED A SUM OF MONEY AS WINNING FROM HORSE RACES AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON THE GROUND THAT IT REPRESENT CASUAL INCOME. THERE WAS HONEST DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND TAXING AUTHORITIES REGARDING THE NATURE & CHARACTER OF THE SAME- FURTHER THE -: 24: - 24 ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT AND NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING FROM DEPT- PENALTY, THEREFORE, CANCELLED- BHUPESH CHAND PAUL V. ITO 4 TTJ 1108 (ITAT CALCUTTA) AO HAVING LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) FOR CLAIMIN G EXEMPTION U/S 10B IN RESPECT OF ITS TOTAL EXPORT SALES DESPITE THE FACT THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM TILL THE TIME UPTO WHICH EXTENSION WAS GRANTED, AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVING SET ASIDE THE PENALTY WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL EXTENSION WAS GRANTED, IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTE D BACK TO THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW- CIT V. SANJIV MISRA(2010) 229 CTR (ALL) 305 ASSESSEE HAVING CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE -: 25: - 25 BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTIONS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THERE WAS MALA FIDE INTENTION T O CONCEAL INCOME. THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED I N UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C)- CIT V. AMAR NATH(2008) 213 TAXAMAN 395(P&H) HONBLE ITAT INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF NARENDRA BADJATIYA V. ITO ITA NO. 537/IND/06 HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS, INTEREST ON FDR AND DIVIDEND, THE INCOME FROM THESE SOURCES IS SPECIFIC AND ASCERTAINED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH IS EXEMPT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. -: 26: - 26 RELYING ON THE ABOVE CASE LAWS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN CASH OF RS. 30,00,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 68 IN THE CASE OF LATE HARIRAM BHAGIRATH SHARDIYA. HONBLE ITAT INDORE BENCH DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON MENTIONED ABOVE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142 (1) WITHOUT EVEN MENTIONING ABOUT THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN HIS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE AO ASKED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DEPOSIT OF RS. 56.30 LACS IN BANK. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THIS IS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS. 56.30 LACS, RS. 26.30 LACS RECEIVED IN CHEQUE AND BALANCE RS.30 LACS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH. THE PURCHASER DENIED HAVING GIVEN RS. 30. LACS IN CASH. THE AO ADDED THEIR -: 27: - 27 FIGURE OF RS. 30 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68. COPIES OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ORDER OF THE AO, LEARNED CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT INDORE BENCH IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL. WHEN ADDITION MADE ITSELF IN THE HANDS OF AN AGRICULTURIST CAN BE DELETED LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS IS THE CASE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) REMAINS A PENAL STATUTE. RUL E OF STRICT CONSTRUCTION SHALL APPLY THERETO. INGREDIENTS OF IM POSING PENALTY REMAINS THE SAME. THE PURPOSE OF THE LEGISL ATURE THAT IT IS MEANT TO BE DETERRENT TO TAX EVASION IS EVIDE NCED BY THE INCREASE IN THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY, FROM 20% UNDER THE 1922 ACT TO 300 PER CENT IN 1985. CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS CARRY DIFFER ENT CONNOTATIONS. CONCEALMENT REFERS TO DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART -: 28: - 28 OF THE ASSESSEE. A MERE OMISSION OR NEGLIGENCE WOUL D NOT CONSTITUTE A DELIBERATE ACT OF SUPPRESSION VERY OR SUGGESTION FALSI. THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS DEFINED AS NO T ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRON EOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OF TRANSCRIPT. IT SIGNIF IES A DELIBERATE ACT OF OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSES SEE. SUCH DELIBERATE ACT MUST BE EITHER OR FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. SECTION 271 OF THE ACT IS A PENAL PROVISIONS AND THERE ARE WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES FOR INTERPRETATION OF SUCH PENAL PROVISI ONS. SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AND NARROWLY AND NOT WIDELY OR WITH THE OBJECT OF ADVANCING THE OBJECT A ND INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE. 7. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE WAS AGRICULTURIST AND WAS HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURE INCOME. HE WAS UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELI EF THAT HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN AS AG RICULTURAL INCOME IS EXEMPT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE SOLD HIS AGRICU LTURAL LAND, HE THOUGHT THAT CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE FOR AGRI CULTURAL LAND -: 29: - 29 IS NOT ATTRACTED AND HE DID NOT FILE ANY INCOME TAX RETURN. THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NO TICE, HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 347/- AND HE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION ON SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL LAND IN THE SAID RETURN. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OBTAIN THE CE RTIFICATE FROM THE TAHSILDAR OR REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT ITS LAND IS 8 KMS. AWAY FROM THE LOCAL LIMIT OF THE INDORE MUNICI PALITY, THEREFORE, HE ACCEPTED THAT HE PAID THE TAX ON THE SAME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CANCE LLED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER T HE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT HE IS NOT SUBJECTED TO INCOME TAX AND WHILE FILING THE RETURN, HE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS B EFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO G ET CERTIFICATE FROM THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ABOUT THE DISTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF THE LOCAL INDORE MUNICIPAL LIM IT. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BRING THE EVIDENCE, HE HAS PAID THE TAX ON IT. THE AO HAS ALSO ALLOWED THE EXEMPTIO N OF RS. 50 LAKHS WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESS EE DID NOT FILE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION. AS PER SECTIO N 271C OF THE ACT, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE PART ICULARS -: 30: - 30 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, HE HAS NOT FILED ANY INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. MOREOVER, HE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY INC OME. THE ASSESSEE HAS GROSSLY CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION FROM CAP ITAL GAINS ON THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AGRICU LTURIST AND HE IS NOT REQUIRE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURN. IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN AND ONLY HAD RECE IVED NOTICE U/S 148. HE OBTAINED THE PAN NUMBER AND AFTER OBTAI NING THE PAN HE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN HE H AS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS AND HE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THA T THE LAND IS EXEMPT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANYTHING. SIMILAR CASE, SIMILAR FACTS HAD COME UP BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIDE ON, 30 1 ITR 260, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED I TS INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND IN THE REVISED RETURN, IT W AS MERELY CONTENDED THAT IT WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION SINCE T HE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND. THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED ITS INCOME. THE ONLY DISPUTE BEI NG WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED O R NOT. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF I NCOME NOR WAS THERE ANY ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE T O HIDE ANY -: 31: - 31 MATERIAL FACTS FROM THE REVENUE, THE PENALTY U/S 27 1(1) CANNOT BE LEVIED. WE FIND FROM THE ABOVE DECISION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN AND HE HAS DISCLOSED THE SALE OF LAND AND THEREAFTER HE HAS FILED THE REVISED RETURN AND CLAIMED THE EXEMPTION BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE AO DID N OT ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND RE VENUE TOOK THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MATTER WAS R EMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER . ON REMAND, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS NOT AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND HE HAS SURRENDERED THE INCOME. IN THAT CASE, TH E PENALTY WAS CANCELLED AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THERE WAS NO AT TEMPT TO HIDE ANY MATERIAL FROM THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT FELT THAT THEY DO NOT SEE PENALTY U/S 27 1(1)(C) WAS JUSTIFIED. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT SUBJECT TO T AX, BUT HE HAS ONLY CLAIMED EXEMPTION WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, BUT WHEN HE COULD NOT FIND THE EVIDENCE ABOUT THE D ISTANCE -: 32: - 32 FROM LOCAL MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF INDORE, HE CAME FORWA RD AND ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AND PAID THE TAX. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) I S JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY. 8. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JOOM GRENETIZE IN APPEAL NO.504 OF 2009, WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF MAK DATA VS. CIT, HELD THAT IN SECTION 271(1)(C) , THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW BY COGENT AND RELIABLE E VIDENCE AND WHEN THE INITIAL BURDEN HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION CONSTITUTED THEIR INCOME AND NOT OTHERWISE . WE FIND THAT SIMILAR CASE WAS DECIDED BY AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RATILAL ASHABHAI ( HUF) VS. ITO, (1999) 63 TTJ (AHD) 595, WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE GIVES THE BONA FIDE EXPLANATION AND DISCLOSES ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND INF ORMATION RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME, THE EX PLANATION NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE, THE PENALTY U/S 271(1) IS E XIGIBLE EVEN IF NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES -: 33: - 33 FACTS ARE MORE CLEAR. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY AND O UR INTERFERENCE IS NOT CALLED FOR. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2015. CPU* 2.7