M/s Bassi Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh V. ACIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 903/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95445 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Business income; Agreed addition; Assessment record
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 903/CHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) M/S BASSI ALLOYS PVT. LTD., VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE VILL-AMBEY KAJRA, MANDI GOBINDGARH G.T. ROAD, MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AABCB3511F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GOYAL, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M. : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA DATED 14.08.2014 CONFIRMING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.2,52,780/- IMPOSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE OF TRADING LOSS, WHEN COMPLETE DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE A.O. (2) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON DISALLOWANCE OF TRADING LOSS, WHEN NO INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FILED NOR ANY PARTICULARS WERE CONCEALED THERE ON. HENCE, RELIEF BE ALLOWED. 2 (3)THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE IS RUNNING A FURNACE AND MANUFACTURES STEEL INGOTS FRO M MELTING SCRAP. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CARR IED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17.01.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESS EE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.70,22,598/- IN ORDER TO COV ER THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES NOTICED DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY. I) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN MACHINERY 15,00,000/- II)UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHED/BUILDING 10,00,000/- III) UNEXPLAINED CASH 23,22,598/- IV) ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 22,00,000/- TOTAL : 70,22,598 THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SURRENDERED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME, IN SCHEDULE-VIII. DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 2.55% ON GROSS SALES OF RS.50,32,40,209/-. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.86% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.26,59,02,371/-. THE SALES WERE ON THE PROGRESSIV E SIDE, YET THERE WAS SLIGHT FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RAT E WHEN COMPARED WITH THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER SEEN THAT BURNING LOSS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS INCREASED TO 7.80% FROM 5.36% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSE SSEE 3 EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08, I T HAD PURCHASED THE LOCAL DUTY PAID SCRAP 3975.650MT @ 19004/PMT BUT DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I T PURCHASED THE IMPORTED SCRAP 9765.5% MT @ 16,225 PM T AND IN THIS SCRAP DUSTING CONTENT WAS MORE SO THIS SCRAP COST LESSER TO THE COMPANY AS COMPARED TO LOCAL SC RAP AND HAD CONSUMED IMPORTED SCRAP MORE THAN LOCAL SCR AP. SIMILARLY, IT HAD CONSUMED SPONGE IRON SCRAP 3258.5 95 MT @ 13096/- PMT ON WHICH YIELD COMES LESS AS COMPARED TO MELTING SCRAP. 4. REGARDING LOW GROSS PROFIT RATE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS THERE IS HIGHER GROSS PROFIT, HOWEVER DUE TO FLUCTUATION IN PRICES, THE FALL WAS ONLY IN TRADING BUSINESS. THIS WAS EXP LAINED WITH THE HELP OF CHART AS UNDER: PARTICULARS 31.3.2007 31.3.2008 TOTAL SALES 265902371.00 503240209.00 LESS: TRADING SALES 24069020.00 98870114.00 NET MFG. SALES 241833351.00 404370095.00 GROSS PROFIT TOTAL 10261662.00 12816400.00 PROFIT/LOSS ON TRADING 3642988.00 (818066.00) G.P. ON MFG. 6618674.00 13634466.00 RATIO 2.74% 3.37% THE ASSESSING OFFICER PREFERRED NOT TO COMMENT ON THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AS REGARDS THE BU RNING LOSS. HOWEVER, REGARDING THE TRADING LOSS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED MATERIAL WEIGHING 4470.80MT FOR RS.9,96,88,180/- AN D SOLD THE SAME WEIGHING 4470.865MT @ RS. 9,88,70,144 /- AND THUS, INCURRED A LOSS OF RS.8,18,066/-. AS PER THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROPERLY SUBSTANTIATE THIS LOSS OF RS.8,18,066/-. HENCE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,18,066/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED NOT TO FILE ANY APPEAL AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. THE PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) W ERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 271(1) ( C ) OF THE ACT. DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING, THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE ON AGREED BASIS AND ADDITION MADE IS MERE LY ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE AND NO ACTUAL CONCEALMEN T HAS BEEN DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. NO PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C) CAN BE LEVIED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASES ALSO. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF LOSS IN THE TRA DING ACTIVITIES. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO TH E ADDITION AFTER DETECTION OF THE SAME BY THE DEPARTM ENT. THIS AMOUNTS TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE JUSTI FIABLE CAUSE FOR INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE CLAIM OF THE LOSS OF RS.8,18,066/- WAS CONSIDERED TO BE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULA RS BY THE ASSESSEE AND PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.2,52,780/- BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WAS LEVIE D. 7. THE ASSESSEE WENT INTO APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) W AS 5 THAT AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.70,22,598/- WAS OFF ERED DURING THE SURVEY OPERATION AND DUE TAXES WERE PAID THEREON. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE VARIA TION IN GROSS PROFIT AND VARIATION IN BURNING LOSSES WER E DULY EXPLAINED. THE GROSS PROFIT RATE FROM MANUFACTURING WAS HIGHER IN THE YEAR FROM THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH INCL UDES BURNING LOSS, WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ONLY ISSUE REMAINING WAS THAT OF TRADI NG LOSS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPLETE DETAIL OF TRADING ACTIVITIES WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THE PURCHASES & SALES WERE SUPPORTED BY PURCHASES & SAL ES BILLS. ALL THE PARTIES WERE REGISTERED UNDER THE VA T. ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE THROUGH CHEQUES AND ALL THE RECEI PTS FROM PARTIES WERE THROUGH CHEQUES ONLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE RAISED A CONTENTION THAT HIS CLA IM WAS BONAFIDE AND THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF ANY INCOME NOR ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS WERE FILED. W ITH THE HELP OF A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS THE ASSESSEE REQU ESTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONF IRMED THE PENALTY HOLDING AS FOLLOWS: 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD WAS PERUSED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE A.O ON 07.08.2014. IT IS NOTED VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 06.02.2010 THAT THE A.O. PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.8,68,066/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AFTER VERIFICATION FROM BOOKS OF A/C TO WHICH THE APPELLANT DULY AGREED. THE A.O HAS ALSO NOTED IN THE ORDER SHEET THAT CONDITIONAL OFFER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO WHICH ALSO THE APPELLANT APPARENTLY AGREED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE QUANTUM ORDER ALSO. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT AGREED TO THE ADDITION AS HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE LOSS AS CONTENDED BY THE A.O. THE SURRENDER WAS MADE EVEN THOUGH THE CONDITIONAL 6 OFFER OF SURRENDER WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. THUS, IN ESSENCE, THE APPELLANT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE LOSS IN TRADING COU LD NOT BE JUSTIFIED BY HIM. THEREFORE, LOOKING INTO TH E FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) IS CONFIRMED. 8. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HIS MAIN ARGUMENT WAS THAT IT HAD FILE D COMPLETE DETAILS (PB 9 AND 10) OF THE TRADING ACTIV ITIES INCLUDING PURCHASE AND SALES BILLS. WHEN ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND DETA ILS WERE FILED FOR ALL THE TRANSACTIONS, THE PURCHASES AND SALES BEING SUBJECT TO VAT, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT L OSSES INCURRED STAND SUBSTANTIATED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) MAY BE DELETED. RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DABWALI TRANSPORT COMP ANY, ITA NO.87/2010(O&M) DATED 15 TH MARCH, 2011. 9. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF THE AO AND CIT(A) PARTICULARLY ON PARA 4.3 , OF THE CIT(A), ALREADY REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE T HAT A SURRENDER OF RS.70,22,598/- WAS MADE DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. TWO ISSUES WERE RAISED BY TH E 7 ASSESSING OFFICER, ONE RELATED TO HIGHER BURNING LO SSES AND THE OTHER OF LESSER GROSS PROFIT RATE AS COMPAR ED TO THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIV EN EXPLANATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING BOTH THE ISSUES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE HIG HER BURNING LOSSES, HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE TRADING LOSSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF TRADING LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ONLY ADDITION W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING LOSSES AND CONSEQUENTLY, PENALTY WAS LEVIED ONLY ON THIS ADDITION. NOW, THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE PENALTY CAN BE L EVIED ON ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF TRADING LOSSES SO MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS HAS TO BE DONE IN THE B ACK GROUND OF THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ON AGREED BASIS. THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS BE FORE US IS THAT IT HAS SUBMITTED EVERY MATERIAL AND EVIDENC E TO SUBSTANTIATE THE TRADING LOSSES, STILL THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH IT. IN SUCH CIRCUMS TANCES HE AGREED TO THE ADDITION SO MADE. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED HIS EXPLANATION FOR FALL IN GROSS PROFIT BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALES WHI CH WERE ACCOMPANIED BY BILLS ALSO. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, HOWEVER, WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE CANNOT BE UNIFORM IN ALL THE YEARS AS IT DEPENDS ON A NUMBER OF FACTORS LIKE VARIATIONS/FLUCTUATION IN RATES, MARKET CONDITIONS ETC. IT 8 IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFER ED AN EXPLANATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION HOWEVER WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT WE ARE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). CONDITIONS UNDER S ECTION 271(1) (C) MUST EXISTS BEFORE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. AS PER THE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C), THE ASSES SEE IS DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE INCOME IF THE EXPLANAT ION OFFERED BY HIM IS FOUND TO BE FALSE OR WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATIO N IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAM E AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT A CASE OF FAL SE EXPLANATION AS WE HAVE ALREADY POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING SUBMITTED ALL DETAILS, LEDGER ACCOU NTS AND BILLS ETC., AND AS SUCH OFFERED A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION. ONCE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IS FOUND NOT TO BE FALSE, TO GET THE CASE IN THE AM BIT OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271, IT HAS TO BE SEEN WHETH ER THE SAME IS SUBSTANTIATED OR NOT. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE IS A BONAFIDE ONE, HE HAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D WHATEVER HE COULD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT OR ERROR IN THE EXPLAN ATION SO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IN ANY OF THE EVIDENC E SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISPROVE THE EVIDENCES SO FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE TOO. IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3), THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED ANY REASON FOR NOT ACCEPT ING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT EVEN 9 REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SURVEY T O SUPPORT ADDITION OF RS.8,18,066/- ON WHICH PENALTY WAS LEVIED. 10.1 FROM THE PENALTY ORDER ALSO, THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS QUOTED A NUMBER OF JUDGEMENTS NOWHERE HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT SPECIFIC INST ANCE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURAT E PARTICULARS ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONUS TO SHOW CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR SHIFTS ON THE R EVENUE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 10.2 AS REGARDS THE UNCONDITIONAL AGREED ADDITION, IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY AGREEMEN T BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESS EE MAY HAVE AGREED TO THE ADDITION MADE & PAY DUE TAXE S. THERE IS NO BAR ON IT TO CHALLENGE THE IMPOSITION O F PENALTY UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES. FINDINGS GIVEN IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS MAY HAVE A PROBATIVE VALUE FOR LEVYING PENALTY, BUT IT CANNOT BE THE SOLE OR CONCL USIVE FACTOR. THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THAT TRADING LOSS WAS EXPLAINED THROUGH EVIDENCE AND MATERIALS. IT IS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SUPPORT IS ALSO DRAWN FROM THE JUDGMENT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DABWALI TRANSPORT COMPNAY (SUPRA), WHICH THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELI ED UPON PARA 6 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT READS AS UNDER: 6. NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXPENSES WHICH CO ULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATE AND ON THAT GROUND, THE SAME WE RE 10 DISALLOWED AND DISALLOWANCE WAS PARTLY UPHELD UPTO THIS COURT, BUT MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FU RNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED, WAS NO T BY ITSELF ENOUGH TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISH ED INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME CONSCIOUSLY. AS HEL D BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ORDER REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED AND PR OFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. SUBSTANTIAL PART OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHETHER OR NOT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, AN INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THERE WAS FURNISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS, IS A QUESTION OF FACT. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS ANALYSED THE FACTS A ND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD TO HAVE CONSCIOUSLY GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 10. 3 IN OUR VIEW IT IS NOT A FIT CASE OF LEVY OF PE NALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 10.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1) (C) LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 7 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED:07.08.2015 PRAMOD/P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/THE CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH