Shri Chandrakant M.Patel, Anand V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Anand

ITA 745/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 74520514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMIR TEKRIWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MEHUL K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , . .!'#$, % & BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.745/AHD/2010 ( ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05) SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL PLOT NO.1207 PHASE-IV OPP.RAILWAY CROSSING VITTHAL UDHYOGNAGAR TALUKA & DISTRICT ANAND ( ( ( ( / VS. THE ITO WARD-2 ANAND * % ./+, ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ADRPP 694BC ( *- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./*- / RESPONDENT ) *- 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MEHUL K.PATEL ./*- 1 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. (2 1 3% / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 14/12/2011 4') 1 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/12/2011 5 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE W HICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA DATED 18.12.2009 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THE ONLY GROUN D OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS:- 01. THE LD. A.O. HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AND LEV IED PENALTY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT . THE PENALTY ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 2 - ORDER HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE HON.CIT(A), VA DODARA. THE SAID PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN WHICH THE AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE SAID ORDER IS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE ITA T, AHMEDABAD. THE ORDER U/S.271(1)(C) HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT HAVING REACHED THE FINALITY OF THE FACTS AND IS PREMATURE SINCE THE MATTER ON Q UANTUM APPEAL IS PENDING AT THE APPELLATE LEVEL. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 2 7/03/2009 AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT D ATED 15/12/2006 WERE THAT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY ASSESSEE HAS DISC LOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.5,32,197/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS INFORMED THAT TOBACCO WAS SOLD. VIDE PARAGR APH NOS.3 & 4, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOTED AS FOLLOWS:- 3. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPIES OF ABSTRACTS OF 7 & 12 AND 8 & A COPY OF PIECE OF PAPE R DATED 28.4.2004 FROM SH.VIRENDRABHAI KALIDAS PATEL OF PAR BIA, TAL.THASARA, DISTT.KHEDA MENTIONING THEREIN THAT HE HAD PURCHASED 857 MUN (1 MUN = 20 KG.) TOBACCO @ RS.621 /- PER MUN FROM SH. CHANDRAKANT MANIBHAI PATEL, MALVAN. A COPY OF ACCOUNT DATED 28.4.2004, MENTIONING THEREIN THE DET AILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN F.Y. 2003-04 & F.Y. 2004-05, AS APP EARING IN HIS BOOK WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. IT SHOWS THAT SH.VIRENDRABHAI HAD PURCHASED TOBACCO AMOUNTING TO RS.5,32,197/- FROM S H. CHANDRAKANT MANIBHAI PATEL & PAID RS.1,60,000/- IN F.Y. 2003- 04 & RS.3,72,197/- IN F.Y.2004-05. TO VERIFY THE G ENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, A STATEMENT U/S.131 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS RECORDED OF SH. VIRENDRABHAI K.PATEL. DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT, IT WAS INFORMED BY HIM T HAT HE IS AGRICULTURIST & ALSO DOING COMMISSION BUSINESS. HE IS NOT KEEPING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & ALSO NOT FILING RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 3 - 4. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO V ERIFY THE TRANSACTION ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SH. VIREND RABHAI K.PATEL, THEREFORE, THE I.T.O. WARD 3, NADIAD, WHO WAS HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER SH. VIRENDRABHAI K.PATEL WAS REQUESTED TO VERI FY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION ENTERED BY HIM WITH THE ASSESSEE. AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION, IT WAS REPORTED BY I.T.O. WAR D 3, NADIAD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT OF SH.VIRENDRABHAI K.PATEL, IN REPLY TO Q.9, HE HAD CO NFIRMED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED TOBACCO @ RS.300 TO RS.400 PER MUN, W HEREAS AS PER LETTER DATED 28.4.2004, HE HAD SHOWN PURCHASE O F TOBACCO @ RS.621 PER MUN, WHICH CLEARLY REFLECTS THAT HE HAD NO IDEA ABOUT PURCHASE OF SALE PRICE. FURTHER, IN REPLY TO Q.10, HE CONFESSED THAT HE SOLD TOBACCO TO SHRI MAHENDRABHAI I.PTEL OF BHADRAN.TAL.BORSAD BUT HE IS UNABLE TO INFORM THE C ORRECT ADDRESS OF THE BUYER OF GOODS. IN REPLY TO Q.13, HE STATED THAT HE HAS NO MEMORY ABOUT THE PAYMENT MADE BY HIM. THEREFORE, T HE I.T.O. WARD-3, NADIAD HAD ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT T HERE WAS NO GENUINE TRANSACTION BY SH.VIRENDRABHAI K.PATEL WITH THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IF ANY TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED THAT ALSO P ERTAINS TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2005-06 & N OT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05. 2.1. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE ISSUE HAD REACHED UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL AN D RESPECTED ITAT AHMEDABAD B BENCH IN ITA NO.542/AHD/2008 (A.Y. 20 04-05) VIDE ORDER DATED 18/06/2010, TITLED AS SHRI CHANDRAKANT H M.PATEL VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, HAS AFFIRMED THE ADDITION AS FO LLOWS:- 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS.5,32,197/- DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT NO RELEVANT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIM COULD BE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONE SALE BILL DATED 28.04.2004 WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE HIM WAS ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 4 - FOUND TO BE UNRELIABLE ON EXAMINATION OF THE ALLEGE D BUYER SHRI VIRENDRA K. PATEL AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAI N THE FACTS EVEN WHEN THE FINDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF SAID SHRI VIREN DRA K. PATEL WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNE D COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS OBSERVED ABOVE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCES OF T HE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF FILING O F FORM NO. 8A WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED UPON PAGE NO. 16 TO 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH CONTAINS COPY OF FORM NO.7/12. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE SAME DOES NOT EVIDENCES THAT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND BELONGING T O THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. NO MATERIAL CO ULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT ACTUALLY TOBACC O WAS CULTIVATED ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REL EVANT YEAR AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SALE BILL WHICH WAS PLACED AT PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS DATED 28.04.2004 A ND THEREFORE, DOES NOT RELATE TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND GENUI NENESS OF THE SAID SALE BILL WAS DOUBTED AFTER EXAMINATION OF THE ALLE GED PURCHASER. THE DISCREPANCIES NOTICES WERE INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE , BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION EITHER BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. FURTHER, THE CONT ENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US WAS THAT AS THE AGRICULTURE INCOME WAS ACCEPTED AT 50% OF THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE IN PAST AND THEREFORE, THE AGRI CULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AT RS.2,66,098/- BEING 50% OF RS.5,32,197/-. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO S HOW THAT IT ACTUALLY SOLD AGRICULTURE PRODUCE OF THE VALUE OF RS.5,32,19 7/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT APART FROM EVIDENCE OF HOLDING OF CERTAIN AGRICULTURE LAND NO ANY OTHER MATERIAL C OULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT IT ACTUALLY CUL TIVATED TOBACCO ON THE AGRICULTURE LAND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND HE HAS RECEIVED ANY PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE SAID AGR ICULTURE PRODUCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, MERELY FROM THE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURE LAND BY T HE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY EARNED AGRI CULTURE INCOME OF RS.5,32,197/- AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RET URN OF INCOME OR RS.2,66,098/- AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE OF ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 5 - THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. FURTHER, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES INCUR RED FOR CULTIVATING THE LAND OR FOR GROWING CROPS, WE FIND NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ACT UALLY EARNED ANY AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURE LAND POSSES SED BY IT. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE O RDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). IT IS CONFIRME D AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3. WHILE CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY, LEARNED CI T(APPEALS) HAS SAID THAT EVEN AT THE TIME OF APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE QUANTUM ADDITION PERTAINING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FILED A SINGLE EVIDENCE REGARDING CULTIVATION O F TOBACCO ON HIS LAND. IN HIS OPINION, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1)(C) HA D BECOME APPLICABLE, SO THE PENALTY OF RS.1,27,603/- U/S.271(1)(C) OF TH E I.T.ACT WAS AFFIRMED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT LD.AR MR.MEHUL K. PATEL APPEARED AND ARGUED THAT AS FAR AS THE POSSESSION OF AGRICUL TURAL LAND IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS NOT IN DISPUTE. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS REFERRED THE FILING OF 7/12 EXTRACT AND THE INFORMATION ON 8-A BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED THAT AS PER THE LAND RECOR DS, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GROWN TOBACCO. ONL Y BECAUSE OF THE CONFUSED STATEMENT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE TOBACCO, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS MADE. HIS SECOND PLANK OF ARGUMENT WA S THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY NOTED THAT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.89,000/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06 THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.2,69,000/-. THIS FACT HAS DISPROVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE PAST AS WELL. ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 6 - 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LD.DR MR.SAMIR TEK RIWAL APPEARED AND PLACED RELIANCE ON FOLLOWING TWO JUDGEMENTS:- SL.NO(S) DECISION IN THE CASE OF IN IT(SS)A/ITA NO(S) 1. SMT.HEENA SHARMA VS. DCIT IT(SS)A NO.5/AHD/2011 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ORDER DATED 30/11/2011 [ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD] 2. SMT.HEENA B.SHARMA VS. ASST.CIT ITA NOS.549 & 550/AHD/2010 FOR A.YS.2000-01 & 2001-02 ORDER DATED 09/12/2001 [ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD] 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO PER USED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE JUDGMENT CITED BE FORE US. THOUGH THE RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS AFFIRMED THE QUANTU M ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT MERELY POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACTUALLY EARNED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, BUT FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WE HAVE TO EXAMINE THE ASPECT OF CONCEALMENT AS LAID OUT IN THE STATUTE. OTHERWIS E ALSO, IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A FINDING IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN RES PECT OF A QUANTUM ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE THE SOLE BASIS WHILE DEALING WITH THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THUS, THE PROCEEDINGS FOR IMPOSITION OF P ENALTY, THOUGH EMANATES FROM THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT, BUT AR E SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT PROCEEDINGS. THE STATUTE HAS THEREFO RE PROVIDED A SEPARATE PROVISION AND AN INDEPENDENT MACHINERY FOR IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY. WITH ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 7 - THIS BACKGROUND, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE AS FAR AS THE POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CONCERNED. FRO M THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE ABSTRACT OF 7/12 AS ALSO 8-A ABSTRACT . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE TOBACCO SALE AND CLAIMED THAT TH E TOBACCO WAS SOLD TO ONE MR.VIRENDRABHAI K. PATEL. A STATEMENT U/S.131 OF THE I.T.ACT OF SHRI PATEL WAS RECORDED. IN PARAGRAPH NO.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT MR.PATEL HAD CONFIRMED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE TOBACCO BUT THE RATES MENTIONE D WERE ALLEGEDLY INCORRECT. THE ALLEGATION WAS THAT HE HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE PURCHASE AND SALE PRICE OF THE TOBACCO. BUT THE SAID DISCREPANCY WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO HIM. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ENTRY IN HIS BOOKS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. AN ANOTHER ASPECT HAS BEEN HIGHLIGHTED, AS N OTED BY THE ITAT IN ITS ORDER DATED 18/06/2010(SUPRA) THAT IN THE PAST YEAR S THIS VERY ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS. BECAUSE IN THE PAST THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTIMATED THE EXPENDIT URE AT 50% THEREFORE IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT D URING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A T ONE POINT OF TIME, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL A MOUNT OF RS.5,32,197/- ABOUT 50% SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UTILIZED TOWARDS EXPENSES TO CARRY OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RE VENUE, LD.DR MR.SAMIR TEKRIWAL THEREFORE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE EXACT QUANTUM OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED . FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, TWO DECISIONS HAVE BEEN CITED BUT IN T HOSE DECISIONS THE FACTS WERE THAT THE SALES BILLS WERE FOUND TO BE NO N-GENUINE. IT WAS A ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 8 - CLEAR FINDING THAT SALE VOUCHERS WERE BOGUS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. DUE TO THOSE SPE CIFIC REASONS AND PECULIAR FACTS INVOLVED THE PENALTY WAS AFFIRMED. HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE ALLEGATION OF ALTOGE THER BOGUS SALE BILLS OF TOBACCO WAS MISSING BUT THOSE BILLS WERE HELD IN CORRECT DUE TO THE CONFUSION OF SALE PRICE OF THE TOBACCO. HOWEVER NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO OVER COME THE IMPUGNED CONFUSION BY CONFRONTING TO THE SAID PARTY. ARBITRARILY AN ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN. THEREF ORE, THREE IMPORTANT FACTS, ONE, THAT THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDING WAS NOT I N DOUBT AND, SECOND, THAT AS PER THE EXTRACTS OF THE LAND-HOLDING THE PRODUCE WAS MARKED AS TOBACCO AND, THIRD, THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WA S SHOWN IN THE PAST; THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS AL TOGETHER FALSE OR UNTRUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO PROVE THE QUANTUM OF AGRI CULTURAL INCOME WHICH COULD NOT BE PROVED, HOWEVER, IT WAS ALSO NOT DISPR OVED BY PLACING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL THAT THOSE WERE BOGUS OR FALSE. DUE TO THIS REASON, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE FACTS DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESULT INTO A LEVY OF PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT. FACTS RELATING TO THE AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BASIS WAS THE PAS T HISTORY OF THE CASE, THEREFORE WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION DO NOT WARRANT FOR LEVY OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. WE HEREBY DIRECT TO D ELETE THE PENALTY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER AHMEDABAD; DATED 16/ 12 /2011 63..(, .(../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.745/AHD/ 2010 SHRI CHANDRAKANT M.PATEL VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2004-05 - 9 - 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7) 5 1 .7 8 7)/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. *- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./*- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9() / THE CIT(A)-IV, BARODA 5. 7 >> >/ // / + + + + ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION..14.12.2011 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 15.12.2011 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 16/12/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 16/12/11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER