Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh V. M/s Jagtu Mal Kundan Lal, Chandigarh

ITA 807/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5285 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Question of law; Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 271(1)(c); 50C; 250

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH A , CHANDIGARH , !' #! $ % , &' BEFORE: SH.SANJAY GARG, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A M ./ ITA NO.807/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), CHANDIGARH. M/S JAGTU MAL KUNDAL LAL,, KIRAN CINEMA, SECTOR 22, CHANDIGARH. ./PAN NO: AADFJ3516B /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA & SHRI ADITYA KUMAR, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT.CHANDERKANTA, SR.DR '# $ /DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2018 %&'(# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2018 &( /ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M . : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH (IN SHORT CIT (A) DATED 13. 2.2017 PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT), DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT. 2. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD SOLD HIS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT JAGAT T HEATRE, SECTOR 17-A, CHANDIGARH AND COMPUTED LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAINS OF RS.4,54,50,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OB SERVED THAT IT WAS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SOLD MUCH BELOW THE MARKET VALUE AND ACCORDINGLY CALLED FOR INFORMATION U/S 13 3(6) FROM THE OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR, U.T, CHANDIGARH AND RE COMPUTED 2 THE CAPITAL GAINS AT A VALUE OF RS.8,31,99,000/-.TH E CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION SO MADE, BUT THE ITAT SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATTE R TO DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER(DVO). THE DVO ENHANCED T HE VALUE FROM RS.15.27 CRORES TO RS.20.80 CRORES, BUT THE AO AGAIN ADOPTED THE LOWER VALUE AS PER LAW AND NOT THE ONE GIVEN BY THE DVO AND RECOMPUTED THE VALUE OF CAPITAL GAIN AT THE SAME FIGURE OF RS.8,31,99,000/-. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE SECOND ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH W AS AGAIN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A), CHANDIGARH IN THE SE COND ORDER. HOWEVER THE CIT(A), ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE SOM E RELIEF BY ADOPTING THE INDEXED COST OF 2005-06 AS AGAINST 2003-04 AS HAD BEEN ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN TH E MEANWHILE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED CONCEALMEN T PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. THE A.O HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE STAMP DUTY OF THE VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY, THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE WERE NOT THE CORRECT. REFERRING TO THE PROVISION OF 50C OF THE ACT, THE A.O. HELD THAT AS PER THE SAID PROVISION I T WAS OBLIGATORY ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DISCLOSED THE ST AMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND HAVING FAILED TO DO SO H AD NOT DISCLOSED THE CORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND WAS THUS LIABLE TO PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE TO HIS INCOME WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS NOT OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD LEAD TO THE LEVY OF P ENALTY SINCE 3 THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER FAULTED ON FACTS NOR ON LA W. THE LD.CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSSESSEES SUBMISS ION, DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED HOLDING THAT THERE WAS N O CLEAR CUT ESTABLISHMENT OF CONCEALMENT BASED ON ACTUAL RE CEIPT OF CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUE STATED IN TH E REGISTRATION OF THE ASSET AND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MERELY ON BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE AC T. 4. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LEARN IT CIT A AT PA RA 3.4 OF HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPEAL ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. I HAVE ALSO STUDIED THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT ADOPTE D A PARTICULAR VALUE WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE PRICE O F THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED A SECOND VALUE WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY BASED ON STANDARD CIRCLE RATES FIXED BY THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION TO ENSURE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. THE VALUATION OFFICER ADOPTED A THIRD VALUE BASED ON AN ESTIMATE. THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT ESTABLISHMENT OF CONCEALMENT BASED ON ACTUAL RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THE VALUE STATED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED OF THE APPELLANT. IF ANY ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISIONS AND FICTION CREATED BY SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO HAVE FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR SHOWN TO HAVE CONCEALED INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND FINALIZED ON THE BASIS OF AN ESTIMATE FIXED BY REVENUE ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS A CASE MADE OUT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C0 .THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS LTD.(SUPRA) & PRICE WATER HOUSE COOPERS PVT.LTD.(SUPRA) AND ALSO SEVERAL OTHER JUDGEMENTS QUOTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ARE APPLICABLE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. THE PENALTY MADE U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT IS, THEREFORE, CANCELLED. GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS ALLOWED. 4 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME THE REVENUE HAS COME IN AP PEAL BEFORE US. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD.DR REL IED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AS REPRODUCED IN PARA 3.1 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AS UNDER: KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TENABLE. BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED VALUE AND FAILED TO DISCLOS ED THE VITAL FACT THAT THE VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY IS MORE THAN THE REGISTERED VALUE THEREFORE, THE FACTS AND PARTICULARS SHOW IN RETURN IS MISLEADING. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSTT. PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER COME FORWARD TO DISCLOSED THE VITAL FACT THAT THE VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS MORE THAN THE REGISTERED VALUE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE ENQUIRY FROM THE REGISTRAR TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND AFTER ENQUIRY FROM THE REGISTRAR, ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PLEA THAT THE MARKET VALUE AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT WAS LESS THAN THE REGISTERED VALUE. THE DEPARTMENT HAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO VALUATION CELL FOR VERIFYING THE FACTS THAT THE MAR KET VALUE IS LESS THAN THE COLLECTORATE VALUE. HOWEVER, THE VALUER HAS DETERMINED THE MARKET VALUE AT RS.20,79,55,4007- AS AGAINST VALUE OF RS.15,26,49,0007- AS PER STAMP VALUATION. AUTHORITY. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED AND ISSUE IS DEBATABLE, THE ANSWER IS NO AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND SIMPLY HAS TAKEN THE. SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN REGISTRATION DEED. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE VALUATION AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND THEN TAKE THE VALUE AS PER REGISTRATION DEED THEN IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ONLY THE VALUE SHOWN AS PER REGISTRATION DEED AND DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE VALUE AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND THEREFORE HE HAS NOT CORRECTLY DISCLOSED THE PARTICULAR OF INCOME WHICH IS THE VITAL FACT FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY. IF ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE COMPLETE INFORMATION WHICH HE IS REQUIRED TO DISCLOSED IN INCOME TAX RETURN FILED BY HIM A ND 5 WHICH HAS EFFECTED THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME AS PER THE ACT, THEN HE CANNOT BE SPARED ON ACCOUNT OF DEBATABLE OR UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIM. HAD THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED BOTH VALUE I.E VALUE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY OR VALUE DISCLOSED IN REGISTRATION DEED, THEN DEFINITELY HE WOULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY, IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES WE CAN SAFELY SAY THAT IT IS A CASE OF DEBATABLE ISSUE NOT THE CASE OF IN CORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME. IN INSTANT CASE, THE PARTICULAR OF INCOME IS NOT CORRECT AS ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE VALU E AS PER STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C HAS BEEN ENACTED BY FINANCE ACT 2002, W.E.F. 01.04.2003 WHICH PUT OBLIGATION, ON ASSESSEE TO TAKE THE VALUE WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IN CASE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS LESS THAN THE VALUE WHICH _ IS TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. SUB- SECTION 2 OF SECTIONS 50C GIVE DISCRETION TO AO TO REFER THE MATTER TO VALUATION CELL IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BUT IS LESS THAN THE VALUE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE CORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, HE IS LIABLE TO PENALTY TO DISCLOSE THE INCORRECT PARTICULAR OF INCOME. 7. REFERRING TO THE ABOVE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT IT W AS OBLIGATORY ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE DISCLOSED THE ST AMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT HAVING DONE SO, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF T HE ACT, FOR CONCEALING/ FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLO WING DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MADAN THEATRES LTD. REPORTED AT [2013] 260 CTR 75(CALCUTTA) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. FORTUNE HOTELS AND ESTATES (P.) LTD. REPORTED AT [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 330(BOMBAY) 6 SHRI C VIJAYKUMAR VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, TRICHY BEARING ITA NO. 997/MDS/2012 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2012 RENU HINGORANI VS. ACIT RANGE 19(3) MUMBAI BEARING ITA NO. 2210/MUM/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 SHRI CHIMALAL MANILAL PATEL VS. ACIT, CIR 6, SURAT BEARING ITA NO. 508/AHD/2010 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 DCIT, CIRCLE-4(L), NEW DELHI VS. M/S JAPFA COMFEED INDIA BEARING ITA NO. 813/DEL/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.06.2011. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS ALSO THE CASE LA WS REFERRED BEFORE US. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. UNDISPUTEDLY PENALTY U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEE N LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE ON THE ADDITION MADE TO THE CA PITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY, B Y SUBSTITUTING THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE ACTUA L CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IS NOT DISPUTED. IN FACT THE DVO ,TO WHOM THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN REFERRE D TO THE BY THE AO, HAD DETERMINED A DIFFERENT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT DESPITE THE SAME, THE AO HAD SUBS TITUTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY APPLYING THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WI TH THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR CUT ESTABLISHMENT OF CONCEALMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION R ECEIVED AND IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ,WE A GREE WITH 7 THE LD.CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE FILED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR THAT MA TTER CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME FOR LEVYING PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE L D.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS CITED ABOV E IS APT WHEREIN IN IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WA S HELD THAT NO PENALTY WAS LEVIABLE ON ADDITION MADE BY IN VOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THE CA SE OF MADAN THEATRES (SUPRA) THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH CO URT UPHELD THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED ON ADDITION M ADE TO CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY SUBSTITUTING THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT,HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.MR. NIAUMUDDIN, LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR TH E REVENUE, CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CHOICE TO DISPUTE THE VALUATION ON T HE BASIS OF THE DEEMED VALUE, BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE ASS ESSEE HAD A CHOICE OR HE COULD HAVE LITIGATED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ACTUAL AM OUNT RECEIVED WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DEEMED CON SIDERATION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) STARTED. THE REVENUE HAS FA ILED TO PRODUCE ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED ONE PA ISE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. 5. WE ARE, AS SUCH, OF THE OPINION THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE TO ADMIT THE APPEAL SINCE THE SAME DOES RAISE ANY QUESTION OF LAW, SUBSTANTIA L OR OTHERWISE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY ALSO DELETED IDEN TICAL PENALTY LEVIED ,IN THE CASE OF FORTUNE HOTELS(SUPRA ) HOLDING AS UNDER: 2.UPON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ENTIRETY AND NOTING THE PECULIAR FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE QUESTION AS POSED BEFORE US AND THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED NEED N OT BE GONE INTO IN ANY FURTHER DETAILS. THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION AND WHICH TH E TRIBUNAL NOTED IS PREVAILING THROUGHOUT. THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE OFFIC E PREMISES AT NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI AND HE SOLD THE SAME DURING THE YEAR PREVIOUS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.2 CRORES. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR OF ASSURA NCES FOR LEVY OF STAMP DUTY WAS RS.3,72,42,000/-. IN VIEW THEREOF BY TAKING RECOURS E TO SECTION 52C(2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE FULL VALUE OF 8 CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER SHOULD NOT BE AD OPTED AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE INSISTED THAT THE QUESTION OF VALUATIO N OF THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. THA T WAS SO REFERRED AND THE REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER DATED 27.12. 2006 DETERMINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,70,03,920/-. THE ASSE SSEE MAINTAINED THAT THE VALUE OF RS.2 CRORES IS ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED B Y IT. HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED AND DETERMINATION OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS DECLARED AS TAX LIABILITY . 3. TO THIS EXTENT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND WHAT LATE R ON FOLLOWED WAS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THIS CANNOT BE TAKE N AS A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME INASMUCH AS THERE WAS A REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THERE WAS CONSIDERATION MENTIONED THEREIN. THAT GRO UND WAS RAISED AND THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENT WAS FORWARDED TO THE VALUER AND FOR DE TERMINATION OF THE VALUE, BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME. IN THESE PECULI AR CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, IS THE CONCLUSION DRA WN. THE LARGER QUESTION POSED FOR OUR CONSIDERATION BY MR.VIMAL GUPTA REALLY DOES NOT ARISE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE. WE LEAVE THAT QUESTION AND CONTENTIONS BASED THEREON OPEN FOR BEING CANVASSED IN AN APPROPRIATE CASE. THE TRIBUNALS OR DER EVEN IF CONTAINING ANY REFERENCE TO SOME DEEMING PROVISION WILL NOT PRECLU DE OR PREVENT THE REVENUE FROM RAISING SUCH CONTENTIONS. WITH THIS CLARIFICATION A ND FINDING THAT THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DOES NOT RAISE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW THAT WE PROCEED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. IT IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. NO COSTS. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A),DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED OF RS.75,25,415/ -.THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ' #! $ % (SANJAY GARG ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER &' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER )' /DATED: 17 TH OCTOBER, 2018 * ! * &) *+,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. - $ / CIT 4. - $ ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , #0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /35' / GUARD FILE &) $ / BY ORDER, 9 6 ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR