Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
72722714 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
01-12-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
02-11-2015
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
17-11-2014
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.YS. : 2008-09 TO 2010-11 SMT.SADHNA SHIVHARE, ACIT, SARANGPUR VS. 2(1), UJJAIN APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. BMOPS0966E APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S.S.DESHPANDE, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. R . MEENA, DR O R D E R PER D. T. GARASIA, J.M. ALL THESE APPEALS RELATE TO ONE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , THEY ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMBINED ORDER. 2. THE COMMON FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE AS UNDER. 3. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF DATE OF HEARING : 02.11.2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 .1 2 .2015 SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 2 2 RS. 31,90,068/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE LICENSE FEE PAID TO EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. AS A MATTER OF FAC T, THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNT FOR THE LICENSE FEE ON CASH BASI S AND DEBIT IT TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE RELEVANT YEAR. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 26,0 6,196/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT TOWARDS LICENSE FEES. THIS FACT HAS BEEN TOTALLY OVERLOOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AM OUNT WHICH IS DEBITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT CANNOT APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET BECAUSE ONLY ONE TIME DEBIT HAS TO BE MADE EI THER TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR TO THE RELEVANT ASSET ACCOUNT TO BE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. SINCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEBITE D TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE CAPITAL IS AUTOMATICALLY REDUC ED BY THE AMOUNT DEBITED AND IF THIS WAS NOT DEBITED, THE CAP ITAL WOULD HAVE APPEARED ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND ACCORDINGLY TH E CAPITAL IN THE BALANCE SHEET WOULD HAVE APPEARED AT HIGHER FIG URE BY THE LIKE AMOUNT AND THEREFORE, IT COULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN SEPARATELY IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE AO HAS OBTAINED THE INFOR MATION FROM EXCISE DEPARTMENT WHICH SHOWS THE LICENCE FEES AT RS. SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 3 3 31,90,068/ - WHEREAS THE AMOUNT DEBITED IS ONLY RS. 26,06,196/- RESULTING IN DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5,83,872 /- WHICH IS THE SAID TO BE UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT ON WHICH THE PENA LTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT HE HAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE A MOUNT ON THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WILL BE I NITIATED AGAINST HIM AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES AND DID NOT CHALLENGE THE QUANTUM TO KEEP HIS PROMISE O F BUYING PEACE AND NOT INVOLVE IN LITIGATION, BUT THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 11,32,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09, SIMILARLY, IN 2009-10, THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,80,000/ - AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,36,00 0/- HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS, WHICH READ AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FROM THE SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 4 4 BUSINESS OF LIQUOR. INITIALLY NO RETURNS WERE FILED AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 THE RETURNS WERE FILED O N 16.11.2011 FOR THREE YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 08- 09, 2009-10 AND 2010-11. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ADV ANCE LICENSE FEES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AO ASCERTAINED THE DATES AND THE QUANTUM OF PAYMENT FROM THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR SUCH PAYMENT AND PAID THE TAXES. THE LD. AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ACCORDINGL Y. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING THE INACC URATE PARTICULARS, HOWEVER, IN THE PENALTY ORDER THE LD. AO AT PAGE 10 LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. I T IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATE D FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS WHILE THE PEN ALTY WAS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 5 5 ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE I NDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M.P. STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 26 I TJ 225, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AT PAGE 221 PARA 4 TH AT THERE MUST BE A CLEAR FINDING ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY IS IMPOSED OR INITIATED. AFTER SUCH FINDING THE PENALTY IS REQUIRED TO BE IMPOSED ON THAT CHARGE AN D NOT ON ANY OTHER GROUND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY, THE MATTER HAS TO BE EXAMINED TO THE BA CKGROUND OF THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. IN THIS CASE, THE EVIDENCE WAS GATHERED DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS NOT CONCLUSIVE OR NOT TOT ALLY IRRELEVANT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASS ESSEE TO DISCLOSE ALL THE INCOME DERIVED FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS AND INDICATE THE INCOME UNDER WHICH IT WAS CH ARGEABLE TO SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 6 6 INCOME TAX AFTER MAKING PERMISSIBLE DEDUCTION. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. P.MADHUSUDAN, 246 ITR 218. THE L D. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOM E. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS TO BE IMPOSED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO WHILE IMPOSING THE PENA LTY HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ASSESSED AS ABOVE. CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE & CHALLAN. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271B & 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 8. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE FOLLOWING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER :- THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND, THUS, HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 7 7 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, I LEV Y A PENALTY OF RS. 11,32,000/- ( RUPEES ELEVEN LACK THIRTY TWO THOUSAND ONLY ) ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 9. SIMILARLY, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE FOLLOWIN G HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER :- ASSESSED AS ABOVE. CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE & CHALLAN. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271B & 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 10. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE FOLLOWING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER :- THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND, THUS, HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, I LEV Y A SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 8 8 PENALTY OF RS. 2,80,000/- ( RUPEES TWO LACK EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY) ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10. 11. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, TH E AO WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ASSESSED AS ABOVE. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 271B & 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 12. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE FOLLOWING ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER :- THEREFORE, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND, THUS, HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. HENCE, I LEV Y A PENALTY OF RS. 4,36,000/- ( RUPEES FOUR LACK THIRTY SIX THOUSAND ONLY) ON THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1)(C) O F SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 9 9 THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 13. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AO AS WELL AS PEN ALTY ORDER FOR ALL THE YEARS. WE FIND THAT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY FO R FILING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND WHILE IMPOSING THE PENALTY, THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY ON THE GROU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. T HEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO HAS INITIATED THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WH ILE THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTI CULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THUS, THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS E SSENTIAL BEFORE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAVE HELD THAT THE AO MUST COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT HE HAS IMPOSE D THE SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 10 10 PENALTY OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE FIND THAT SIMI LAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE I.T.A.T., INDORE BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS. M.P. STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, (2015) 26 ITJ 225 (TRIB. INDORE ), WHEREIN WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER :- 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH PARTIES. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271(1)(C). WE NOTED THAT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE IF AO IS SATISFIED IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO INDICATION WHICH SPEAKS OF AO BEING SATISFIED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMMITTED DEFAULT AS STIPULATED U/S 271(1)(C). NO DOUBT, LEGISLATURE HAS INSERTED SUB- SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 11 11 SECTION (1B) IN SEC. 271 BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 W.E.F . 1.4.1989 PROVIDED THAT DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SUCH SATISFACTION. IN THE ASSESSMENT WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUCH DIRECTION. DIRECTION IS GIVEN ONLY TO THE STAFF TO ISSUE AO, DN & CHALLAN & PEN. NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C). THIS, IN OUR OPINION, DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO A DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AS THE AO HAS NOT UTTERED ANYTHING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS REGARD. THE ACTION OF THE AO, IN OUR OPINION, IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENT OF SEC. 271(1)(C) EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008. IN THE CASE OF MS. MADHUSHREE GUPTA BRITISH AIRWAYS PLC VS. UNION OF INDIA, 317 ITR 107 (DEL), THE SCO PE OF AMENDMENT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS UNDER : SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 12 12 IN OUR OPINION, THE IMPUGNED PROVISION ONLY PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER INITIATING PENALTY CANNOT BE DECLARED BAD IN LAW BECAUSE IT STATES THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED, IF OTHERWISE IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM RECORD THAT THE AO HAS ARRIVED AT PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE ISSUE IS OF DISCERNIBILITY OF THE SATISFACTION ARRIVED AT BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING BEFORE HIM. THE PRESENCE OF PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS AND REMAINS A JURISDICTIONAL FACT WHICH CANNOT BE WISHED AWAY AS THE PROVISION STANDS EVEN TODAY, I.E. POST AMENDMENT. SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 13 13 IF THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS; AN ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO RECOURSE TO A COURT OF LAW. 4. THIS IS THE SETTLED LAW THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED ON TWO CHARGES I.E. I) CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS O F INCOME AND II) FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BOTH THE CHARGES ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. IF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT, THEN PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE CHARGE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND VICE VERSA. THUS, THERE MUST BE A CLEAR FINDING ABOUT THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY IS IMPOSED OR INITIATED. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO T O STATE WHETHER PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 14 14 SUCH FINDINGS, THE ORDER WOULD BE BAD IN LAW. THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. LTD., 282 ITR 642, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: - IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STATE WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HELD, THAT THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOWED THAT NO CLEAR CUT FINDING HAD BEEN REACHED. THE TRIBUNAL HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS LEGAL ISSUE. THE RATION IN CIT V. MANU ENGINEERING WORKS 132 ITR SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 15 15 306 (GUJ) WAS APPLICABLE AND THE ORDER OF PENALTY COULD NOT BE UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER WAS INVALID. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. RAJAN AND CO., 291 ITR 340 (DEL), WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271 (1) (C) OF T HE INCOME TAX 1961 WOULD REQUIRE PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND AND RECORDING OF AT LEAST A BARE MINIMUM OPINION ON THE PART OF AO THAT A CASE FOR INITIATIO N OF PENALTY PROCEEDING WAS MADE AS THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THAT INCORRECT PARTICULARS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HIGH COURT THEREFORE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS THE OTHER JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE. 14. WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T. , INDORE SMT. SADHNA SHIVHARE, SARANGPUR VS. ACIT, 2(1), UJJ AIN. I.T.A.NOS.538, 727 & 728/IND/2014 A.Y.S. 2008-09 TO 2010-11 16 16 BENCH, DELETE THE PENALTY IN ALL THE APPEALS. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 ST DECEMBER, 2015. CPU* 424
