CIT-2, Bhopal V. Sewa Sahakari samiti, Raisen

ITA 857/Ind/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3105 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-09-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA ADVS
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Wrong claim; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 27

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.857/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CIT,-2 BHOPAL / VS. SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, RAISEN BHARKACHA ( REVENUE ) ( RESPONDENT ) PAN: AAFTS5908N ITA NO.858/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 CIT,-2 BHOPAL / VS. KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI, MARYADIT, BHAISAYA BADI RAISEN ( REVENU E ) ( RESPONDENT) PAN: AAAAK9049E REVENUE BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, CIT - DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL & N.D. PATWA, ADVS DATE OF HEARING: 18.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 .11.2019 SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 2 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED AT THE INSTANCE O F REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-2 BHOPAL (IN S HORT CIT(A)), DATED 28.08.2018 WHICH ARE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961(HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FRAMED ON 26.03.2015 BY DCIT-5(1) BHOPAL. AS THE ISSUES RAISE D IN BOTH APPEALS RELATES TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND B REVITY. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI VIDE ITA NO.857/IND/2018: WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) BY HOLDING THAT THE CONCEALMEN T WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO REPLY OR S UBMISSION AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THEREBY INDICATI NG THAT HE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION TO PUT FORTH. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE THAT MERE FILI NG OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET BY THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL M ATERIAL FACTS. THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE; THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL IN THE CASE OF KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI VIDE ITA NO.858/IND/20 18: SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 3 1. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) BY HOLDING THAT THE CONCEALMEN T WAS NOT BROUGHT OUT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO REPLY OR S UBMISSION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO THEREBY INDICATI NG THAT HE HAD NO JUSTIFICATION TO PUT FORTH. 2. WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IGNORING THE PRINCIPLE THAT MERE FILI NG OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET BY THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF ALL M ATERIAL FACTS. THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE; THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. 4. FROM PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS WE OBSERVE THA T SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IN BOTH THESE CASES ARE AG AINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A) LEVIED U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. AO. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BOTH THE ASSESS EES ARE COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WER E FRAMED ON 12.12.2011 AFTER MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST 52,90,726/- DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VIIA) 95,00,753 /- TOTAL 1,47,91,479/- KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST 51,59,870/- DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS U/S 36(1)(VIIA) 1,08,41,87 5/ TOTAL 1,60,01,745/- SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 4 6. SUBSEQUENT TO THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT W ERE INITIATED. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS LD. AO DID NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE PROCEEDED TO LEVY THE PENALTY AT RS.73,21,782/- & RS.79,20,86 4/- COMPUTED @ 150% OF THE TAX PAYABLE ON CONCEALED INCOME IN THE CASE OF SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI RESP ECTIVELY. 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEES FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUCCEEDED. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) VEHEMENTLY ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO AND ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 1. CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P.) LTD.(2010) 327 I TR 510(DELHI HIGH COURT) 2. UNION OF INDIA VS. DHARAMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSOR S (2007) 295 ITR 244 (SC) 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AT LENGTH REFERRING TO THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: A.DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS INTEREST I. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT BY ASSESSEE AS THE INTERES T EXPENSES WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE 'JILA SAHKARI BANK' WAS A LSO PRODUCED AND IT WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A), THAT THERE WAS NO DOUBT ON THE INTEREST EXPENSE. THE EXPENDITURE WAS GENUINE II. THE ID CIT(A) IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF 'GOODYEAR INDIA LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 2461TR 116'(PG NO. 6 O F SYNOPSIS) SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 5 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN NO ADVERSE REMARK BY AUDITORS ARE MADE IN THE AUDIT REPORT FILED ALONG WITH FORM 3CB AND 3CD ON INTEREST DEBITED TO THE P&L A/C STILL DISALL OWANCE CAN BE MADE. THE FACTS OF THE REFERRED CASE OF GOODYEAR INDIA AR E DIFFERENT, IN THAT CASE THE ID CIT(A) WENT TO THE EXTENT OF AS KING THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE RELEVANT DETAILS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE THE AD IN CASE A REMAND WAS MADE. THERE ALSO IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT THE VOUCHERS AND DETAILS CANNOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AD. OBVIOUSLY THE AUTHORITIES WERE LEFT WITH NO OPTION EXCEPT TO DISALLOW PORTION OF THE CLAIM. THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSE WAS MADE IN THAT CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE INTEREST EXP WAS DEBITED I N P&I AND THE AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN WITH BALANCE ALONG WITH INTERE ST CHARGED WAS DULY SUBMITTED. (PB 10) THE COPY OF THE LOAN REGISTER CONTAINING MEMBERS DE TAILS TO WHOM LOAN HAS BEEN DISBURSED WAS ALSO ENCLOSED (SEE SUBMISSIONS PB 11) III. IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 26.03.2015, NO COGNIZANCE OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS BY THE ASSESSEE MADE DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERA TION. THE ID CIT(A) IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERED ALL THE SE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THUS, WE RELY O N THE FINDINGS OF ID CIT(A). IV. PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET WOULD SHOW THAT THE BALANCE ON ASSET SIDE WAS MAINLY DUE TO LOSSES OF R S. 4,04,31,381.78/- (PB 57) B.DISALLOWANCE OF PROVISIONS OF BAD, DOUBTFUL DEBTS : I. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT BY ASSESSEE AS THE ABOVE PROVISIONS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT AND LO SS STATEMENT. II. IT WAS A BONA-FIDE MISTAKE ON PART OF ASSESSE E, THAT FROM A.Y. 2007-08, THE BENEFIT OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD & D OUBTFUL DEBT U/S 36(1)(VIIA) WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE (BEIN G PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETY). EVEN THE RETURN FOR A .Y. 2008-09 AND A.Y. 2009-10 WERE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEE IN A BONAFIDE BELIEF AND RELYING ON TH E AUDIT REPORT, COULD NOT ADD BACK THE PROVISIONS FOR BAD & DOUBTFUL SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 6 DEBT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DEC ISION IN CASE OF 'PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED V S. CIT (2012) 348 ITR 306 (SC)' IT WAS HELD THAT 'THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THE RE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING THE RETURN FAILED TO ADD THE PROVI SIONS FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THIS CAN ONLY BE DESC RIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE CAL IBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BE EN CAREFUL CANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUI LTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME.' 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD PLACED BEFORE US. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELAT ES TO DELETION OF PENALTY BY THE LD. CIT(A) LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT BY THE LD. AO FOR THE ALLEGED FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. WE OBSERVE THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THE ADDITIONS RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND DISALLOWAN CE OF PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS. THE LD. AO HAS DENIED T HE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT THE CAS E THAT ANY PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR ANY INCORRECT IN FORMATION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE AUDI TED BALANCE SHEET. SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 7 11. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, THE AL LEGATION OF THE LD. AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEES SOCIETIES HAVE KEPT INTERE ST BEARING FUNDS IDLE I.E. NOT FETCHING ANY INTEREST INCOME WHICH LE D TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. IN THE SIMILAR FASHION PRO VISION OF BAD AND DOUBTFUL DEBTS WAS DENIED. 12. FURTHER, WE OBSERVE THAT LD. CIT(A) GAVE DETAIL ED FINDING OF FACTS AFTER FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT APPLICAB LE ON THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE AO HAS PASSED A VERY-VERY SHORT AND CRYPTIC ORDER. THE CONCEALMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH CONCEALMENT PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE FACTS HA VE BEEN ASCERTAINED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, APPELLANT ORDER TAX AUDIT REP ORT AND AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNTS. 7. IT IS OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE DISALLOWANCES ON WH ICH PENALTY HAVE BEEN IMPOSED WERE DULY AND FULLY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELL ANT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE O F INTEREST, BOTH INTEREST PAID AND INTEREST RECEIVED AND THE LOANS AND ADVANC ES RECE3IVED AND EXTENDE3D ON WHICH SUCH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID ON R ECEIVED HAD BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YE AR. FURTHER, VARIOUS PROVISIONS MADE INCLUDING PROVISIONS FOR BAD AND DO UBTFUL DEBTS AND INTEREST PAYABLE ETC. HAD ALSO BEEN DULY SHOWN IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET. 8. IT IS THUS, EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE APPE LLANT HAD MADE THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES AND PROVISIONS IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HAS ONLY DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENSES AND PROVISIONS. THE AO HAS NOT DISALLOWED THESE ITEMS AS A RESULT OF UNEARTHING ANY UNDISCLOSED OR CONCEALED FACT. IT IS SETTLED LAW BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PV T. LTD. 322 ITR 158 THAT MERE MAKING A WRONG CLAIM DOES NOT AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THAT IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES CERTAIN CLAIM OF DEDUCTION AND THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO, IT DOES NOT MEAN TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 8 CONCEALED THE INCOME FOR HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURA TE PARTICULARS AND HE IS LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). 9. THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF IN COME. THE EXPRESSION HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS NOT BEE N DEFINED EITHER IN SECTION 271(1) OR ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT. THE WORD CONCEAL IS DERIVED FROM THE LATIN WORK CONCOLARE WHICH IMPLIES TO HIDE. WEB STERS NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY EQUATES ITS MEANING TO HID E OR WITHDRAW FROM OBSERVATION; TO COVER OR KEEP FROM SIGHT, TO PREVEN T THE DISCOVERY OF TO WITHHOLD KNOWLEDGE OF. THE OFFENCE OF CONCEALMENT I S THUS A DIRECT ATTEMPT TO HIDE AN ITEM OF INCOME OR A PORTION THEREOF FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CONCEALED SOMETHING. 10. THE APPELLANT HAS INFORMED THAT IN IDENTICAL CI RCUMSTANCES NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2013-14 AND 2014-15. A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN FILED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THE DISALLOWA NCE OF INTEREST MADE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT LEAD TO IMPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY. 11. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN A CASE OF CIT VS. RELI ANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ), HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION, THE PENALTY PROVISIONS CA NNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAI M TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, THE DETAILS, IN THEMSELVES WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR WOUL D BE VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UPTO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIMS IN THE RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, THE CLAIM WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WA S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PENAL TY U/S 271(1)(C). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE O F EVERY RETURN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REASON , THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTE NDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. 12. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY ALL HIGH COURTS AND I.T.A.T. INCLUDING BY I.T.A.T., INDORE I N THE CASE OF DCIT VS BHOPAL VIKAS PRADHIKARAN, BHOPAL (ITANO.44 & 45/IND /2011) 13. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION O F HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, IT HAS TO BE CONCLUDED THAT MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 9 CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALL THE MATERIAL WAS AVAILABLE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BEFORE THE AO FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT DISC OVERED OR UNEARTHED ANY NEW FACT NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN/FINAL AMOUNTS. THE AO HAS ONLY DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENSES AND CLAIM OF PROVISIONS MADE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS AMOUNT SIMPLY BY LOOKING AT THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS NOT MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF ANY DISCOVERY OF ANY CONCEALED FACT. AS PER LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT SUCH DISALLOWANCE DO NOT ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THUS, THERE WAS NEIT HER ANY CONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE APEX COURT DECISION DISCUSSED IN THE ABOVE PARAS, IT IS CONCLUDED THAT THE PENALTY PROVISIONS ARE NOT ATTRA CTED IN THIS CASE. THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY IMPOSED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, T HE PENALTY IMPOSED IS DELETED. 13. AS REGARD THE JUDGMENT REFERRED AND RELIED BY T HE LD. DR, WE FIND THAT THESE ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES AND THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.(SUPRA) IS SQU ARELY APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE, THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE LD. AO CANNOT BE TERMED EITHER AS CONCEALMENT OF IN COME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, LEVYING OF PENALTY ON THE ADDITIONS MADE FOR DISALLOWANCE O F BONA FIDE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEES CANNOT STAND FOR AND THUS RIG HTLY HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, NO INTERFEREN CE IS CALLED FOR IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME STANDS CONFI RMED. SEWA & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI YARYADIT ITANO.857/IND/2018 & ITAN O.858/IND/2018 10 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF REVENUE IN C ASE OF SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI (ITANO.857/IND/2018) & KRASHAK SEWA SAHAKARI SAMITI (ITANO.858/IND/2018) STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.11.20 19. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) SD/- (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INDORE; DATED : 22/11/2019 CTX? P.S/. . . COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR