Jagdishbhai Madhubhai Patel, Nadiad V. ACIT, Kheda CIrcle, Nadiad

ITA 90/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0952 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-06-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 54F; 142(1); 274

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ABENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.90/AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2013-2014 JAGDISHBHAIMADHUBHAI PATEL , SUTARIA POLE, KANTHARIACHAKLA, NADIAD-387001. PAN: ADFPP0871J VS. A.C I.T. , KHEDA CIRCLE, NADIAD. ( APPLICANT ) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHETAN SHAH WITH SHRI HITESH SHAH, A.RS REVENUE BY : SHRI DILEEP KUMAR , SR.D. R /DATE OF HEARING : 05/03/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/06/2020 /O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HASBEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNEDCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX( APPEALS)-2, VADODARA, DATED 07/08/2017 (IN SHORT LD.CIT(A)) ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (H ERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 25/01/2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2013-2014. ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 2 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APP EAL. YOUR APPELLANT BEING DISSATISFIED WITH THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, BARODA PRESENTS THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ON THE FOLLOWING AMONGST OTHER GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS)-2 IS BAD IN LAW, CONTRARY TO LEGAL PRONOUNCEMENT AND SAME BE QU ASHED. 2. THE HON'BLE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PEN ALTY AT 200% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED U/S 271(L)(C). YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THA T HE HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS NOR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS INTENTION ALLY OR DELIBERATELY SINCE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS FILLED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VOLUNTARILY. IT IS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED @ 200% IS TO BE DROPED. 3. PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT VOID AB INITIO AS THE NOTICE U /S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ISSUED ON 25/01/2016 REVEALS THAT THE LD A O HAS NOT DELETED THE INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARTS OF THE NOTICE, WHEREB Y IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO THE WHICH DEFAULT COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, I.E. WHETHER IT IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS SOUGHT TO BE LEVIED. 4. PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT VOID AB INITIO AS, IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER, LD AO HAS FRAMED THE SATISFACTION TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C ) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHILE THE NOTICE DATED 24/06/2016 [WHICH IS IN CONTINUATION OF THIS OFFICE NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 2 71 THE ACT DATED 25.01.2016] IS FOR HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF YOUR FOLLOWING IN COME. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOTICE U/S 274 R.W.S. 271 OF THE ACT DATE D 25.01.2016 IS ATTACHED IN ANNEXURE B. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AO HAS FRAMED THE SATISFAC TION TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND WHILE ISSUING THE NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY THE REASON IS FOR THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. BOTH THE REASONS ARE CONTRADICTORY TO EACH OTHER AND HENCE, THE NOTICE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY IS VOID ABINITO. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES FOR LEAVE TO ALTER/AMEND/WITH DRAW/MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS BEFORE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL HAS CHALLENGED THE I MPOSITION OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF FU RNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN THE ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 3 PARTNERSHIP FIRMS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO G89,83,817 AGAINST THE LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND RESTRIC TED HIS CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT TO AN AMOUNT OF RUPEES 41,92,608.00 ONLY . ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIMING EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF T HE ACT AMOUNTING TO G47,73,710.00 ONLY. HENCE THE AO INITIATED THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)/274 OF THE ACT DATED 25 TH OF JANUARY 2016 WHICH WAS FINALLY CONFIRMED AT RS. 29,50,170.00 BEING 300% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO UGHT TO BE EVADED. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARN ED CIT (A). 4. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CONTENDE D THAT HE HAS FILED THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO. AS SUCH NO DEFECT IN THE REVISE D COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO CONSC IOUS CONCEALMENT OR ACT OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS BECAUSE, HE HIMSELF (THE ASSESSEE) ON NOTICING THE EXCESS CLAIM UNDER SECTIO N 54F OF THE ACT HAS REVISED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BEFORE DETECTING THE SAME BY THE REVENUE AND PAID THE AMOUNT OF TAX. 5. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY TO THE TU NE OF 200% FROM 300% OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AS IMPOSED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 4 4.4 AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, 1 FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54F AT RS, 89,83,817/ - IN THECOMPUTATION OF INCOME ENCLOSED WITH THE RETURN WITHOUT FURNISHING ANY DET AILS, THUS, IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHETHER EXEMPTION U/S, 54F WAS CLAIMED FOR PURCHASE OF HOUSE OR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND HOW MUCH WAS THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT THEREIN. ONL Y WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE VIDE LETTER DATED 07,08.2015, THE APP ELLANT REDUCED THE EXEMPTION U/S, 54F TO RS.41,92,608/-, FROM THESE FACTS, IT IS THE NOT FUII IN THE OF HE THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR OF THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE, APPELLANT HAD REVISED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY REDUCING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S, 54F P HE CANNOT BE ABSOLVED FROM PENAL CONSEQUENCES. THIS VIEW GETS SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS ION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PVT, LTD, VS. C1T 353 (SC) WHEREIN IT HAS B EEN HELD THAT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AFTER DETECTION OF CONCEALMENT DOES NOT RELEASE THE ASSES SEE FROM MISCHIEF OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT UAL AND LEGAL POSITION, I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME LIABLE FOR PENALTY AND HENCE THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD IS UPHEL D, 4.5 IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSE D THE PENALTY AT 300% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HA D DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO EVADE TAX BY MISREPRESENTING FACT REGA RDING INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. I FIND THAT EVEN AT APPELLATE STAGE, APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR CLAIMING THE HIGHER EXEMPTION U/S, 54F AS THE W RITTEN SUBMISSION IS TOTALLY SILENT ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, IT EMERGES THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CONS CIOUSLY CLAIMED HIGHER EDUCATION U/S.54F WITH A VIEW TO AVOID INCIDENCE OF TAXES AND ACCORDINGLY A HIGHER RATE OF PENALTY IS REQUIRED TO NE IMPOSED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE, I AM OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY AT 200% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WILL BE QUITE REAS ONABLE AND JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY AT 200% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED AND ALLOW CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNN ING FROM PAGES 1 TO 37 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT MENTION ANY SPECI FIC CHARGE IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT WHETHER THE PEN ALTY WAS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNI SHING THE INACCURATE LOSS OF INCOME. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED AR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNI SH THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AS SUCH THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE BONA FIDES B ELIEVE HAS CLAIMED HIGHER AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 5 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US VEHEME NTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS D EDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EXCESS DE DUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THUS THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED BY THE AO FOR RS. 29,50,170.00/- WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEAR NED CIT (A). 8.1 REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE LEVIED BY THE AO WHETHER THE ASS ESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULAR OF INCOME, IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE AO HAS MENTIONED THE SPECIFIC CHAR GE IN THE PENALTY ORDER BY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GET T HE BENEFIT OF IMMUNITY FROM THE PENALTY MERELY THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC CHARGE IN THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT OR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE, IN THIS REGARD, DRAW SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SNITA TRANSPORT PVT. LTD. VS. ASSIS TANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX REPORTED IN 42 TAXMANN.COM 54 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD T HAT PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED WITHOUT MENTIONING THE SPECIFIC CHARGE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 9. REGARDING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS AMBIVALENT REGARDING UNDER WHICH HEAD THE PENALTY WAS BEING IMPOSED NAMELY FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS, WE MAY RECORD THAT THOUGH IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID ORDER INITIATION OF PENAL TY ON BOTH COUNTS, IN THE ULTIMATE ORDER OF PENALTY THAT HE PASSED, HE CLEARLY HELD THAT LEVY O F PENALTY IS SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THUS INSOFAR AS FINAL ORDER OF PENALTY WAS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CL EAR AND PENALTYWAS IMPOSED FOR ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 6 CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN LIGHT OF THIS, WE MAY PERUSE THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CASE OF MANU ENGINEERING WORKS (SUPRA). IN THE S AID DECISION, THE DIVISION BENCH CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' MAY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOTICE FOR PENALTY, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY T O COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSE SSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY TH EM. IF NO SUCH CLEAR CUT FINDING IS REACHED BY THE AUTHORITY, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. IT WAS A CASE IN WHICH IN FINAL CONCLUSION THE AUTHORITY HAD RECORDED THAT 'I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL HAVE TO BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME AND/OR T HAT IT HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME.' IT WAS IN THIS RESPECT THE BENCH OBSERVED THAT 'NOW THE LANGUAGE OF 'AND/OR' MAY BE PROPER IN ISSUING A NOT ICE AS TO PENALTY ORDER OR FRAMING OF CHARGE IN A CRIMINAL CASE OR A QUASI-CRIMINAL CASE, BUT IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE IAC TO COME TO A POSITIVE FINDING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOM E HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE.NO SUCH CLEAR CUT FINDING WAS REACHED BY T HE IAC AND, ON THAT GROUND ALONE, THE ORDER OF PENALTY PASSED BY THE IAC WAS LIABLE TO BE STRUCK DOWN.' 8.2 NOW THE SECOND CONTROVERSY BEFORE US ARISES SO AS TO ADJUDICATE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME WITH RESPECT TO SUCH EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE A CT. THE TERM INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OR ELSEWHERE IN THE ACT THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE MEANING OF THE TERM INACCURATE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD REPORTED IN 189 TAXM AN 322 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TERM INACCURATE SIGNIFIES DELIBERAT E ACT OR OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THE DETAILS/INFORMATION CONT AINED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME /FINANCIAL STATEMENTS /AUDIT REPORT WHICH ARE NOT C ORRECT ACCORDING TO TRUTH, AND WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DISHONEST I NTENT SHALL BE TREATED AS INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN HOLDING SO, WE FIND SUP PORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD (SUPRA). WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE M ENSREA. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A MATTER OF FACT, TH E ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS : 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT.' WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTI CULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MU ST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORREC T, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT O R ERRONEOUS OR FALSE ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 7 8.3 NOW, IF WE ANALYSES THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE STATED DISCUSSION, WE FIND THAT THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO PROPERTIES. THE FACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TWO PROPERTIES WAS NOT DOUBTED BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIPT OF THE NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT HAS REVISED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME RESTRICTI NG THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FROM RS. 89,83,817.00 AND PA ID THE DUE TAXES. THUS IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE INVESTMENT IN TWO PROPERTIES UNDER THE BONA-FIDE BELIEVE AND HE DID N OT CLAIM EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT DELIBERATELY. 8.4 THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL S UGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. 8.5 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ANY ADDITION/DISALLOWANC ES MADE DURING THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY JUSTIFY THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BESIDES THE ELEMENT O F INCOME ADDED THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THERE MUST BE SOME MATERIAL/CIRCUMSTAN TIAL EVIDENCES LEADING TO THE REASONABLE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS CONSCIOUS CONC EALMENT OR THE ACT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE NOT CONVINCED WITH THE FINDING OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. HENCE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 01/06/2020 AT AH MEDABAD. SD/- SD/- SSSSSSSSD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/06/2020 ITA NO.90/AHD/2017 ASSTT. YEAR 2013-14 8 MANISH ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ' # / BY ORDER, $ / # %& ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. !'## , / DR, ITAT, 6. '$%& / GUARD FILE.