Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7072 (ITAT-INDORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-02-2020
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
06-01-2020
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
20-11-2018
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.728 & 729/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 ITA NO.885/IND/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 REVENUE BY S HRI ASHISH GOYAL, CA ASSESSEE BY SHRI ASHISH PORWAL, DR DATE OF HEARING 06 .0 1 .20 20 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT 05 . 0 2 .20 20 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, AM. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS WHICH INCLUDES TWO AP PEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2013-14 ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA 54, JOSHI MARKET, NALIYA BAKHAL, INDORE VS. DCIT CENTRAL - 1, INDORE (APPELLANT) (RE VENUE ) PAN NO. ACFPB4590H ACIT CENTRAL - 1, INDORE VS. SHRI ASHOK BHATIA 54, JOSHI MARKET, NALIYA BAKHAL, INDORE ( REVENUE ) (RESPONDENT ) PAN NO. ACFPB4590H SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 3 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL IN ITANO.729/IND/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13): 1.1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OF RS.3,00,000/- LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE PENALTY REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTI NG THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THEREFORE PENALTY REQUIRED TO BE DEL ETED. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITI ONAL GROUNDS AND/OR AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE AFORESA ID GROUNDS BEFORE, OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL . 5. BRIEF COMMON FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FRO M THE RECORDS ARE THAT ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF R ETAIL TRADING OF SAREES, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTIES AND INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES AS INTEREST. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO NS U/S 132 OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE BUSINESS AS WELL AS RES IDENTIAL PREMISES OF CHL GROUP OF INDORE INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE ON 4. 10.2013. THE RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 & 2012-13 WERE F ILED ON 22.12.2015 U/S 153A OF THE ACT DECLARING INCOME OF RS.16,38,850/- AND RS.20,64,270/- INCLUDING SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 5 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY INITI ATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT LEVYING SPECIFIC CHARGE ON THE ASSESSEE THUS NOT FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. RE LIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON INDORE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN THE CASE OF V ARAD MEHTA ITA NO.693/IND/16 DATED 06.12.2018. 8. PER CONTRA DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTL Y ARGUED SUPPORTING THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E REVOLVES AROUND THE LEGALITY AND QUANTUM OF LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS.1,66,500/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O U/S 271(1)(C) O F THE ACT LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O AND SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT (A). 10. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL, FIRSTLY RAISING THE LEGAL ISSUE PLEADED THAT LD. A. O HAS WRONGLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY NOT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR F OR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO PLEADE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER REMAINED SILENT BY NOT SPECIFYING AS FOR WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 7 GIVEN UNDER SECTION 139(2)/148 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, NO , DATED , OR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SAID SECTION 139(1) OR BY SU CH NOTICE. X *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 22(4)/23(2) OF THE INDIA INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, OR U NDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 NO , DATED \I '*HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR .......... , FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AT 3 .30 P . M. ON 21 .04.2016 AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU S HOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVA IL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH BE WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SU CH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1). SD/- (AMIT KUMAR SONI) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)-1 INDORE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-L, INDO RE ROOM NO. 101, AAYAKAR BHAWAN (MAIN), OPP. WHITE CHURCH, INDORE F. N O. DCIT-(CENT.)-L/PENALTY/ 16-17 DATED: 16 /09/2016 PAN-A CFPB4590H TO SHRI ASHOK BHATIA 33-A, RADHA NAGAR, NEELKANTH COLONY, INDORE-452006 SIR, SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 9 12. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR LEGAL ISSUE CAME UP FOR AD JUDICATION BEFORE US IN THE CASE OF VARAD MEHTA ITA NO.693/IND /16 DATED 06.12.2018 (SUPRA) WHEREIN WE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KULWANT SINGH BHATIA (SUPRA ) OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS; 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORDS PLACED BEFORE US. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REVOL VES AROUND THE LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS.16,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE LD. A.O AND CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A) ON THE ADDITION OF RS.51,00,000/- FROM UN DISCLOSED SOURCES FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. PERUSAL OF RECOR DS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINING NEGLIGENT AND NON COMPLIANT TO V ARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES PROVIDED BY THE LD. A.O AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TOWARD S THE LEVY OF PENALTY. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, FIRSTLY RAISING THE LEGAL ISSUE PLEADING THAT LD. A.O HAS WRONGLY I NITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY NOT SPECIFYING THE CHARGE FOR LEVY O F PENALTY I.E. WHETHER THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONC EALING OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT TH OUGH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PROPER SATISFACTION ON R ECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BUT IN THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BUT LD. A.O REMAINED SILENT BY NOT SPECIFYING AS TO WHICH CHARGE THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. TO EXAMINE THIS FACT WE HAVE GONE THROU GH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE ISSUED FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE-52 OF THE PAPER BOOK AN D THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 11 REQUIREMENT OF LAW, AS NOTICE WAS NOT SPECIFIC, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF PENALTY ENFORCED BY THE AUTHORITY. 15. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MANJUNATHA GIN NING FACTORY, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HELD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY MEN TION THE GROUND IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WHETHER CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURN ISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL GROUND OF SECTION 271(1)(C ) WOULD NOT MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC REQUIRE MENT OF LAW. ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS ON WHICH HE HAS CHARGED SPE CIFIC OTHERWISE OPPORTUNITIES OF NATURAL JUSTICE DENIED. ON THE BA SIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO THE ASSESSEE. TAKIN G UP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FINDING THE ASSESSSEE I N ANOTHER LIMB IS BAD IN LAW. THOUGH IN THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. A.O HAS MADE PROPER SATISFACTION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BU T IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE FAILED TO ME NTION THE LIMBS FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED. IT IS THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE LD. A.O IN NOT MAKING PROPER SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE NOTICE U/S 274 ABOUT THE ADDITION FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEE N INITIATED. LD. A.O SHOULD BE CLEAR AS TO WHETHER THE ALLEGED ADDITION GOES UNDER THE LIMB OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. MERELY ISSUING NOTICE IN G ENERAL PROFORMA WILL NEGATE THE VERY PURPOSE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHRAF 161 TAXMANN 218 THAT THE QUASI- CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT OUGHT TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 14. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ABOVE REFER RED JUDGMENTS AND IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AR E OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ALLEGED NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 31.12.10 IS INVALID, UNTENABLE AND SUFFERS FR OM THE INFIRMITY OF NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE AC CORDINGLY DIRECT TO SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 13 MERITS OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY ARE NOT BEEN DEALT WI TH, AS THE SAME ARE RENDERED ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS GROUNDS RAISE D ON MERITS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13 ARE PARTLY AL LOWED . 14. NOW WE TAKE REVENUE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2013-14 IN ITANO.885/IND/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14): 15. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL IN ITANO.885/IND/2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.1,00,00,000/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER US / 271(1)(C) FOR A.Y. 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMEN T OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PENALTY WAS LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH WA S DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MA TERIAL LPS-1, LPS-3, LPS-6, LPS-7 AND BALANCE-SHEET-1 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, IN TH E RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A AND DEL ETED THE PENALTY ONLY ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS WITHOUT DECID ING THE CASE ON MERITS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO VA LID INTIMATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IMPLY CLEARLY THAT NO NOTICE ISSUED I N SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 15 NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) READ WITH SECTION 27 4 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PAN ACFPB4590H OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (CENTRAL)-1, INDORE DATE 22.03.201 6 TO, SHRI ASHOK KUMAR BHATIA 33,-A RADHA NAGAR NEELKNANTH COLONY INDORE -452006 SIR/MADAM, WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU: - X *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNISH BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 22(1 )/22(2)/34 OF THE INDIAN INCOME- TAX ACT, 1922, OR WHICH YOU WERE REQUIRED TO FURNIS H UNDER SECTION 139(1) OR BY A NOTICE GIVEN UNDER SECTION 139(2)/148 OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961, NO , DATED , OR HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO FURNISH IT WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED AND IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY THE SAID SECTION 139(1) OR BY SU CH NOTICE. X *HAVE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 22(4)/23(2) OF THE INDIA INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922, OR U NDER SECTION 142(1)/143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 NO , DATED \I '*HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR INCOME OR .......... , FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 21 .04.2016 AT 3:30 PM AND SHOW CAUSE WHY AN ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY ON YOU S HOULD NOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 271 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO AVAIL YOURSELF OF THIS OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN PERSON OR THROUGH AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE YOU MAY SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING ON OR BEFORE THE SAID DATE WHICH BE WILL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE ANY SUCH ORDER IS MADE UNDER SECTION 271(1). (AMIT KUMAR SONI) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(C ENTRAL)-1 INDORE SHRI ASHOK BHATIA ITA NOS.729, 729 & 885/IND/2018 17 INCOME, ASSESSMENT) NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDIN G TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT.' 13. A READING OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED PROVISION MAK ES IT CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PROVIDED THAT SUC H RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE PROVI SIONS OF THE ACT. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, SECTION 292B CAN BE RELIED UPON FOR RESISTING A CHALLENGE TO THE NOTICE) ETC., ONLY IF THERE IS A TECHNICAL D EFECT OR OMISSION IN IT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE 'OF THAT SECTION FROM WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE SAME CAN BE RELIE D UPON FOR CURING A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE, SUM MONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING TAKEN BY AN AUTHORITY SUFFERS FROM AN INHERENT LACU NA AFFECTING HIS/ITS: JURISDICTION, THE SAME CANNOT BE CURED BY HAVING RE SORT TO SECTION 292B. 6.3.1 THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX R EPORTED IN 247 CTR (2012) 500 HAS EXPRESSED ITS VIEW THAT MER E PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY/DEFECT CAN BE CURED BY INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B. SIMILAR VIEWS ARE EXP RESSED BY HON'BLE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI 'I' BENCH IN THE CASE OF INSTANT HOLDINGS LTD. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 49 IT:R (TRIB) (2016) 32. 6.3.2 THE HORI'BLE I.T.A.T., MUMBAI, 'J' BENCH, IN CASE OF SURENDRA A. KOTADIA VS. A.C.LT. IN ITA NO. 3350/M UM/2015 PRONOUNCED ON 09.10.17 HAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE NO PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN INITIATED XX] S 271AAA, THE DEFECT IS NOT CURABLE DEFECT AS PROVIDED U ] S 292B OF THE ACT. 6.4 FOR A WHILE, EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED A MISTAK E CURABLE U/S 292B, THEN IN THAT CASE THE AO WAS NOT REQUIRED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U ] S 271AAB AND INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) AFRESH. THE AO COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAB AS INITIATION U/ S 271(1)(C) ITSELF. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R DROPPED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAB FOR A.Y. 2013-14 VI DE LETTER DATED 14/09/2016 AND THE DATE OF INITIATION OF PE NALTY U/S 271(L)(C) HAS BEEN TAKEN AS 14/09/2016 AS EVIDENT FROM THE SUBSEQUENT LETTER DATED 16/09/2016. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO VALID INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,00, 00,QOO'/- LEVIED U/S 271(L)(C) IS DELETED. GROUND NO.1 IS A LLOWED.
