ITO (OSD), CHENNAI V. M/s. PPN Power Generating Company Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 774/CHNY/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 77421714 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R B NAIK
• Assessee Lawyers: ARIHARAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction
• Section: 92D; 10B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(OSD), COMPANY CIRCLE V(2), CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) V. M/S PPN POWER GENERATING COMPANY PVT. LTD., JHAVER PLAZA, 3 RD FLOOR, 1-A, NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH RD., NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. PAN : AABCP8131D (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.B. NAIK, CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. H ARIHARAN, C.A. DATE OF HEARING : 18.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2011 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, GRIEVANCE RA ISED IS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED A PENALTY OF ` 1,88,11,365/- LEVIED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271AA OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 2 ACT). AS PER THE REVENUE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO ) BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND GROSSLY ERRED I N NOT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT OR OBTAINING COMMENTS OF THE TPO. 2. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, ENGAGED I N POWER GENERATION, HAD INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS WITH AN ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE CALLED MARUBENI CORPORATION, TOKYO (MC) WHICH WAS HOLDING 26% OF THE SHARES IN THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A REFERENCE WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 92CA(1) OF THE ACT TO THE TPO FOR DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN FORM NO.3CEB FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 92CA(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE TPO REQUIRING IT TO FURNISH DETAILS OF DOCUMENTS AN D INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE ADOPTED BY IT. AF TER EXAMINING INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, THE TPO CAME TO A CONCL USION THAT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS NECESSARY TO THE VALUE OF INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE TPO NOT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED U NDER RULE 10D I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 3 OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. AS PER THE TPO, THE DOC UMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS COMPARABLE FOR THE IMPORT PRICE ADOPTED, BUT, COULD ONLY BE CO NSIDERED AS REPORTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO INDEPENDENT BODIES. A S PER THE TPO, THESE WERE ONLY FACT-FINDING REPORTS. HE, THEREFO RE, RECOMMENDED INITIATION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AA OF THE AC T. 3. PURSUANT TO TPOS RECOMMENDATION, ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING IT TO SHOW CAUSE W HY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271AA OF THE ACT. IN R EPLY, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TPO HAD, BASED ON THE DOCU MENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, COME TO A CONCLUSION THA T NO ADJUSTMENT WAS NECESSARY ON THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO HAD MISUNDERSTOOD THE APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND OTHER BODIES CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT AS ME RE FACT-FINDING REPORTS. ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN FORWARDED COPIES OF A PPROVALS GRANTED BY TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ENERGY DEPARTME NT OF GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU WHICH, AS PER THE ASSESSEE , SUPPORTED THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE ARRIVED BY IT. ASSESSEE ALSO MADE A SUBMISSION THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO IT TO I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 4 FURNISH ALL THE REQUISITE DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. WAS NOT IMPRESSED. ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSEE DID NOT MAIN TAIN THE DOCUMENTS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN AS PER S UB-SECTIONS (1) AND (2) OF SECTION 92D READ ALONG WITH RULE 10D OF INCOME-TAX RULES. HE, THEREFORE, LEVIED PENALTY OF 2% ON THE TOTAL VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF ` 94,05,68,268/-. 4. IN ITS APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD MAINTAINED ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTS I N SUPPORT OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEF ORE TPO AS WELL AS ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THERE C OULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY BETTER EVIDENCE THAN THE APPROVALS RECEIVE D FROM INDEPENDENT GOVERNMENT BODIES, INCLUDING THE CUSTOM S AUTHORITIES. FURTHER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE, BASED ON THE DOCUMENT S FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS REQUIRED ON THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT IONS ENTERED INTO BY IT. FURTHER AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE TPO EXCEPT FO R MAKING A GENERAL COMMENT THAT DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10D HA D NOT BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT POINTED OUT FAI LURE OF THE I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 5 ASSESSEE FOR MAINTAINING ANY PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON OECD GUIDELINES WHICH, INTER ALIA, M ENTIONED THAT A TAX PAYER COULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO OBTAIN AND MAINT AIN DOCUMENTS BEYOND THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF REQUIREMENT THAT COULD ESTABLISH THE TRANSFER PRICING VALUES. LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER C ONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC FINDING REGARDING FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED UNDE R RULE 10D OF THE I.T. RULES, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AA OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESSEE. LD . CIT(APPEALS) WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE TPO HAD NOT RECOMM ENDED ANY REVISION TO THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACT IONS AND THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO HIM, IT WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE DO CUMENTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUFFICIENT FOR JUST IFYING THE VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. HE, THEREFORE, DEL ETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. NOW BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R., STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A GROSS FAIL URE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN NOT MAINTAINING THE DOCUMENTS PRESC RIBED UNDER I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 6 RULE 10D. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, JUST BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN APPROVALS OF ELECTRICITY BOARD OF GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES, IT WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10D WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. FUR THER, AS PER THE LEARNED D.R., NOT RECOMMENDING ANY CHANGE IN THE VA LUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BY ITSELF BE A SUFFICIENT GROUND TO EXCUSE THE ASSESSEE FROM NON-MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 10D. 6. PER CONTRA, LEARNED A.R., SUPPORTING THE ORDER O F LD. CIT(APPEALS), SUBMITTED THAT IN A SIMILAR CASE, CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE WHERE THERE WAS NO REVISION IN ARMS LENGTH PRICES. IN THIS CONNECT ION, A COPY OF THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF ACIT V. FOSTER WHEELER INDIA PVT. LTD. (IN I.T.A. NOS. 1126 & 1127/MDS/2010 DATED 16 TH NOVEMBER, 2010) WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE LEARNE D A.R. I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 7 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. THE PRIMARY REASON FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DING IS CLEAR FROM PARA 5 OF THE ORDER DATED 16.3.2006 OF THE TPO, PLA CED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGES 82 AND 83, AND THIS IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER F OR BREVITY :- 5. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE COMPANY HAS NOT MAINTAINED T HE DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY RULE 10B OF I.T. ACT, 1961. FURTHER EVEN DOCUMENTS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A COMPARABLE FOR THE IMPORT PRICE AND IT IS A MERE REPORT SUBMITTED TO INDEPENDENT BODIES AND JUS T A FACT- FINDING REPORT. HENCE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271- AA OF THE I.T. ACT IS RECOMMENDED. A LOOK AT RULE 10D OF INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962, WOULD SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY AN ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 92D FOR ITS INTERNATIONAL TR ANSACTIONS, ARE AS UNDER :- ( A ) A DESCRIPTION OF THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE OF THE A SSESSEE ENTERPRISE WITH DETAILS OF SHARES OR OTHER OWNERSHIP INTEREST HELD THEREIN BY OTHER ENTERPRISES; ( B ) A PROFILE OF THE MULTINATIONAL GROUP OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE ENTERPRISE IS A PART ALONG WITH THE NAME, ADDRESS, LEGAL STATUS AND COUNTRY OF TAX RESIDENCE OF EACH OF THE ENTERPRISES COMPRISED IN THE GROUP WITH WHOM INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE, AND OWNERSHIP LINKAGES AMONG T HEM; ( C ) A BROAD DESCRIPTION OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE AND THE INDUSTRY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE OPERATES, AND OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS T RANSACTED; I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 8 ( D ) THE NATURE AND TERMS (INCLUDING PRICES) OF INTERN ATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH EACH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, DETAI LS OF PROPERTY TRANSFERRED OR SERVICES PROVIDED AND THE QUANTUM AN D THE VALUE OF EACH SUCH TRANSACTION OR CLASS OF SUCH TRANSACTION; ( E ) A DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, RISKS A SSUMED AND ASSETS EMPLOYED OR TO BE EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE A SSOCIATED ENTERPRISES INVOLVED IN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ON; ( F ) A RECORD OF THE ECONOMIC AND MARKET ANALYSES, FORE CASTS, BUDGETS OR ANY OTHER FINANCIAL ESTIMATES PREPARED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE BUSINESS AS A WHOLE AND FOR EACH DIVISION OR PRODUC T SEPARATELY, WHICH MAY HAVE A BEARING ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSA CTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE; ( G ) A RECORD OF UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR ANALYSING THEIR COMPARABILITY WITH THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO, INCLUDING A RECORD OF THE NATURE, TER MS AND CONDITIONS RELATING TO ANY UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTION WITH THIRD PARTIES WHICH MAY BE OF RELEVANCE TO THE PRICING OF THE INTERNATIO NAL TRANSACTIONS; ( H ) A RECORD OF THE ANALYSIS PERFORMED TO EVALUATE COM PARABILITY OF UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS WITH THE RELEVANT INTERNA TIONAL TRANSACTION; ( I ) A DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS CONSIDERED FOR DETER MINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE IN RELATION TO EACH INTERNATIONAL TRAN SACTION OR CLASS OF TRANSACTION, THE METHOD SELECTED AS THE MOST APPROP RIATE METHOD ALONG WITH EXPLANATIONS AS TO WHY SUCH METHOD WAS SO SELECTED, AND HOW SUCH METHOD WAS APPLIED IN EACH CASE; ( J ) A RECORD OF THE ACTUAL WORKING CARRIED OUT FOR DE TERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE, INCLUDING DETAILS OF THE COMPARABLE D ATA AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION USED IN APPLYING THE MOST APPROPRIATE ME THOD, AND ADJUSTMENTS, IF ANY, WHICH WERE MADE TO ACCOUNT FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION AND THE COMPA RABLE UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS, OR BETWEEN THE ENTERPRIS ES ENTERING INTO SUCH TRANSACTIONS; ( K ) THE ASSUMPTIONS, POLICIES AND PRICE NEGOTIATIONS, IF ANY, WHICH HAVE CRITICALLY AFFECTED THE DETERMINATION OF THE ARMS L ENGTH PRICE; I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 9 ( L ) DETAILS OF THE ADJUSTMENTS, IF ANY, MADE TO TRANSF ER PRICES TO ALIGN THEM WITH ARMS LENGTH PRICES DETERMINED UNDER THES E RULES AND CONSEQUENT ADJUSTMENT MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR TAX PURPOSES; ( M ) ANY OTHER INFORMATION, DATA OR DOCUMENT, INCLUDING INFORMATION OR DATA RELATING TO THE ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISE, WHIC H MAY BE RELEVANT FOR DETERMINATION OF THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. AS WE CAN SEE FROM ABOVE, THERE ARE CLEAR DESCRIPTI ON OF ITEMS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE TO BE MAINTAINED BY AN ASSESSEE . TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE TPO, ASSESSEE HAD, VIDE ITS LE TTER DATED 14 TH MARCH, 2006, FURNISHED DETAILS AND SUCH DETAILS AS MENTIONED IN ITS COVERING LETTER WERE AS UNDER :- DETAILS CALLED FOR IN RELATION TO TRANSFER PRICING ENQUIRY S.NO. QUERY OUR RESPONSE A DESCRIPTION OF THE OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 1 B A PROFILE OF THE MULTINATIONAL GROUP OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PART THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PART OF A MULTINATIONAL GROUP C BROAD DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INDUSTRY PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 2 D NATURE AND TERMS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 3 E DESCRIPTION OF FUNCTIONS PERFORMED, RISKS ASSUMED AND ASSETS EMPLOYED PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 4 F RECORD OF ECONOMIC AND MARKET ANALYSIS, FORECASTS AND BUDGETS PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 2 G TO I RECORD UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS FOR ANALYZING THEIR COMPARABILITY. PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 5. FOR COPY OF IDBI I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 10 RECORD OF ANALYSIS PERFORMED TO EVALUATE COMPARABILITY OF UNCONTROLLED TRANSACTIONS DESCRIPTION OF THE METHODS CONSIDERED FOR DETERMINING ALP RECORD OF THE ACTUAL WORKING CARRIED OUT FOR DETERMINING ALP ASSUMPTIONS, POLICIES AND PRICE NEGOTIATIONS IF ANY WHICH HAVE CRITICALLY AFFECTED THE ALP DETAILS OF ADJUSTMENTS IF ANY MADE DETAILED JUSTIFICATION FOR ALP APPRAISAL MEMORANDUM AND REVISED APPRAISAL MEMORANDUM PLEASE SEE ANNEXURE 6. WE ARE ALSO FURNISHING CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INFORMATI ON AS DESIRED BY YOU AS BELOW : 1. WE ARE UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE PUBLISHED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ASSOCIATE ENTERPRISES, AS WE HAVE NOT BEEN FAVOURED WITH THE SAME. 2. COPY OF THE ENGINEERING, PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTIO N (EPC) ONTRACT IS IN ANNEXURE 7. COPY OF THE 8-YEAR OPERATIONAL SPARES CONTRACT IS IN ANNEXURE 8. 3. COPY OF OUR ANNUAL REPORT IS IN ANNEXURE 9. 4. COPY OF THE INCOME TAX COMPUTATION STATEMENT IS IN ANNEXURE 10. I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 11 THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE ANNEXURES MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE COVERING LETTER WERE NOT AVAILABLE. ASSE SSEE HAS FURNISHED THOSE ANNEXURES AND COPIES ARE PLACED AT PAPER-BOOK PAGES 6 TO 30. ON THE FACE OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH, INTER ALIA, INCLUDE A FAR ANALYSIS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WI TH THE REQUIREMENT OF RULE 10D. IF THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON ANY PARTICULAR ITEM, THE TPO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE BOUND TO POINT IT OUT SPECIFICALLY BEFORE LEVYING OF PENALTY. BY FORMING A GENERAL OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED REQUIRED DOCUM ENTS AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 10D, PENALTY COULD NOT HAVE BEE N LEVIED. ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AND INFOR MATION. INADEQUACY OF ANY DOCUMENT FOR MEETING REQUIREMENT OF RULE 10D HAS NOT BEEN POINTED OUT BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER, BASED ON SUCH DOCUMENTATION, THE TPO HAD HIMSELF CO ME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY REV ISION OF VALUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS. PARA 2 OF THE ORDE R DATED 16.3.2006 OF THE TPO IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- I.T.A. NO. 774/MDS/07 12 2. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 92CA(2) WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE ON 10.3.2006 TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF DOC UMENTS AND INFORMATION CALLED FOR, IN AN ENCLOSED QUESTIONNAIR E. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR ON 15.03. 2006. MR. S. KRISHNAN, FINANCIAL CONTROLLER AND AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE APPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES. THE TPO HAD COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT NO ADJUSTMENT WAS NECESSARY TO THE VALUE OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION S ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THE ABOVE DETAILS AND INFORMA TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ARE AT LOSS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS TH E FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO LEVY A PENALTY IN SUCH CIRC UMSTANCES. THE PENALTY LEVIED WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS). NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 21 ST OCTOBER, 2011. KRI. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 / CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI/D.R./GUARD FILE