DCIT, Chandigarh V. M/s Rana sugars Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 964/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86176 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR AMARVEER
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Retrospective amendment; Difference of opinion; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 115JB

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.964 /CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE DCIT, VS. M/S RANA SUGARS LTD., CIRCLE 1 (1), SCO 49-50, SECTOR 8-C, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AABCR6744C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : DR.AMARVEER RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.N. SINGLA DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2105 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06.02.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.08.3014 OF CIT(A), CHANDIGARH. 2. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) WITHOUT PROPER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AS THE CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION (P) LTD. (2010) 327 ITR 510 WHEREIN T HE HONBLE COURT UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED FOR WRONG / MALAFIDE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION. 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITION ON A/C OF CAPITALIZATION OF INTEREST RELATED TO CWIP AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,38,74,6 91/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE BEIG FULLY AW ARE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE CWIP AND THE INTEREST OUTGO RELA TED TO THE LOANS TAKEN FOR CWIP HAD DEBITED THIS INTEREST TO THE P&L ACCOUNT AND THIS MALAFIDE CLAIM HAD BEEN DISALL OWED AND THE ADDITION UPHELD IN APPEAL. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/ S 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITION ON A/C BUILDIG REPAIR & MAINTENANCE EXPENSES UDLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL NO. 253/P/09-10, DATED 01.03.2011 FOR THE A. Y. 2004-05, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE CLAI M IS CLEARLY INCORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT PROOF OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND COULD NEITHER SHOW HOW THESE EXPENSES WERE CURRENT IN NATURE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF A/C OF DEFERRED TAX DULY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPE AL AGAINST ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IN APPEAL NO. 253/P/0 9-10, DATED 01.03.2011, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THA T WHEN THERE WAS NO CREDIT ENTRY IN P&L ACCOUNT, THE DEDUC TION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CALCULATING BOOK PROFITS FOR MAT U/S 115JB IS CLEARLY MALAFIDE. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING DISALLOWANCES:- (I) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO R S. 2,38,74,691/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON CAPITALIZATION OF T HE SAME BECAUSE WORK WAS STILL IN PROGRESS. (II) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27,561/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOW ANCE U/S 14A (III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,01,940/- U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR NO N-DEDUCTION OF TAX (PENALTY DROPPED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DURING PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS ) (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF PART OF THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES (V) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX 3 4. SINCE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED BY FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED WHY PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. T HE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS THROUGH VARIOUS LETTERS WHICH HAVE BEEN SUMMARIZED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER OF SUGAR. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT PRODUCED COMPL ETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & VOUCHERS & ALSO FURNISHED ALL DETAILS AS DESIRED BY YOUR GOODSELF. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME A& ALL ISSUES ARE DEBATABLE & DOES NOT ATTRACT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE REVENUE HAS MADE VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AFTER PLACIN G RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS. ALL ISSUES ARE HIGHLY DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE JUDICIA L OPINION IS DIVIDED ON ALL THESE ISSUES. THE REVENUE HAS DISALLOWED PART OF INTEREST EXPENS ES AS INTEREST TO BE CAPITALIZED WORK IN PROGRESS U/S 36( 1)(III). WE HAD TAKEN THE EXPENSE TO BE OF REVENUE NATURE WHILE THE DEPARTMENT IS OF THE VIEW THAT IT SHOULD BE OF CAPI TAL NATURE. WHEREAS DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAD PAID TOTAL INT EREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 12,40,01,825/-OUT OF WHICH HAS A LREADY CAPITALIZED THE ACTUAL INTEREST ON CAPITAL WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS. 8,81,67,844/- AND CHARGED ONLY RS. 3,58,33,981/ - TO PROFIT & LOSS FROM WHICH REVENUE HAS FURTHER DISALLOWED RS . 2,38,74,691/- ON ESTIMATION BASIS. IT IS ONLY A MAT TER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS, THUS PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED. WE HAD PROVIDED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS WELL. THE REVENUE HAS TREATED DEFERRED TAX AS BOOK PROFI T FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATION OF MAT U/S 115JB, BUT AS THIS AMENDMENT WAS RETROSPECTIVELY MADE IN 2001, HENCE N O PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED ON THIS ADDITION, AS THIS WAS CLAI MED ON THE BASIS OF PROVISIONS OF TAX ON THAT DATE. 4 THE REVENUE HAS TREATED THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON R EPAIRS OF BUILDING AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHEREAS THE COMP ANY TOOK IT IS AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. BUT, NO SPECIFIC DISALLO WANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE REVENUE, RATHER DISALLOWANCE IS MA DE ON THE ESTIMATION BASIS. FURTHER IN THE ORDERS OF INCOME T AX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR AY 2004-05 HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE @ 1% OF THE VALUE OF BUILDING. SINCE, THE BUILDING IS OLD, IT REQUIRES REPAIR & MAINTENANCE ON REGULAR BASIS WHICH CAN AMO UNT TO MORE THAN 1% OF THE VALUE OF BUILDING, AS THE VALUE OF BUILDING REMAIN THE SAME BUT REQUIRE MORE REPAIR LATER YEARS . WE HAD PROVIDED COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE. IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS, THUS PENALTY SHOU LD NOT BE CHARGED. THE REVENUE HAS FURTHER MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A )(IA) ON WHICH THE HONBLE SPECIAL BENCH OF INCOME TAX AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL AT VISHAKHAPATNAM HAS DECIDED IN THE FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S MERILYN SHIPPING & TRAN SPORTS VS. ACIT. FURTHER CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT HAS GIVEN TH E JUDGMENTS IN CASE OF RAJPAL MIDHAVS. ACIT IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, THIS ISSUE IS A DEBAT ABLE ISSUE ON WHICH NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE. THE REVENUE HAS MADE NOTIONAL DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE U/S 14A ON INVESTMENTS WHICH IS AGAIN A DEBATABLE ISSUE. THE RELIANCE IS PLACE ON SUPREME COURT JUDGM ENT IN CASE OF CIT DELHI VS. JOYCO INDIA PVT. LTD. FURTHER AS P ER JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT V S. AJAIB SINGH & CO., 253 ITR 630 (P&H) & IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAVAIL SINGH & CO.254 ITR 191 N O PENALTY SHOULD BE LEVIED . IN THESE CASES IT WAS HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF AN EXPEN SE PER SO CANNOT MEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICUL ARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME AND HENCE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. FURTHER THE RELIANCE IS PLACE ON APEX COURT JUDGMEN T IN CASE OF CIT VS RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS. IN THIS CASE SUP REME COURT HELD THAT S. 271(1)(C) PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED EV EN FOR MAKING UNSUSTAINABLE CLAIMS. IN THIS CASE THE INTER EST WAS 5 DISALLOWED U/S 14A. PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS LEVIE D ON THE GROUND THAT THE CLAIM WAS UNSUSTAINABLE WHICH WAS D ELETED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL: (I) S.271(1)(C) APPLIES WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PRESENT WAS NOT A CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME. AS REGARDS THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, NO INFORMATIO N GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. THE WORDS INACCURATE PARTICULARS MEAN S THAT THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN ARE NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OF CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TR UTH OR ERRONEOUS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A FINDING BY THE AO THAT ANY DETA ILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCO RRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF I NVITING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). (II) THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT SUBMITTING A N INCORRECT CLAIM FOR EXPENDITURE WOULD AMOUNT TO GIV ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME IS NOT CORRE CT. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN THE MAKING OF AN INCORRE CT CLAIM IN LAW TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS . A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABL E IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PA RTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE. IF THE CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RETURN WH ERE 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 INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. (III) THE LAW LAID DOWN IN DILIP SHROFF 291 ITR (SC ) AS TO THE MEANINGS OF THE WORDS CONCEAL AND INACCURATE CO NTINUES TO BE GOOD LAW BECAUSE WHAT WAS OVERRULED IN DHARME NDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS 306 ITR (SC) WAS ONLY THAT PART IN DILIP 6 SHROFF WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT MENS REASONABLE WAS A N ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THE RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON ITAT CHANDIGARH, BEN CH JUDGMENT IN CASE OF ARVIND KAKKAR VS. ITO WARD (3) KAITHAL ITA NO. 1444/CHANDI/2010. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSIONS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE BEING A CORPORATE ASSESSEE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(I) (III), 14A AND 40(A)(IA) AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN RESPECT OF THESE ITEMS. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT CORRECT THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASI S AND DETAILED FINDINGS WERE RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASSESSE E INTENTIONALLY CLAIMED THE CAPITAL EXPENSE IN THE GUISE OF REPAIR AND MAINTENA NCE. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEFERRED TAX, IT WAS OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS WELL AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RE TURNS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS AND L EVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY @ 100% AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,10,78,245/- ON VARIOUS DISA LLOWANCES EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,01,940/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40 (A)(IA) ON WHICH PENALTY WAS DROPPED. 7. ON APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED AND TH E LD. CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME FOUND FORCE IN THE SAME AND DELE TED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TIMES. 8. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN DETAIL. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT PENALTY ON VARIOUS ISSUES DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 7 ON DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED VIDE PARA 3.3 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE. THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON CAPITAL W ORK IN PROGRESS. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE DUE TO NON FURNISHING OF DETAILS OF UTILIZATION OF VARIOUS SEC URED AND UNSECURED LOANS AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND ALSO TH AT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INTEREST WAS CAPITALIZED HAD NO T BEEN PROVIDED. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PROPORTIONATE / ESTIMATED BASI S AND FOR NON FURNISHING OF CERTAIN DETAILS. THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME OR HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND SO THE CONCEAL MENT PENALTY ON SUCH DISALLOWANCE CANNOT BE LEVIED IN VI EW OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT.LTD.(322 ITR 158). HENCE , THE CONCEALMENT PENALTY LEVIED ON THIS ISSUE IS CANCELL ED. 10. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY ADJUDICAT ED THIS ISSUE. IN FACT DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 429/CHD/2011, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DISTILLERY DIVISION HAD ALREADY STARTED FUNCTIONING . HOWEVER, SINCE THE DETAILS OF FUNDS USED FOR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS COULD NOT BE RECONCILED, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED FOR DISALLOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THAT INTEREST SHOULD BE ALLOWED ON PROPORTIONATE BA SIS. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS EITHER CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN OUR OPINIO N LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE PENALTY. 11. ON DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETE THE PENALTY VIDE PARA 4.3 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE. PENA LTY FOR CONCEALMENT CAN BE LEVIED WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS 8 CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCU RATE PARTICULARS. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE U/S 14A OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CONCEALED PARTICULAR S OF ITS INCOME OR HAD NOT FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS AND SO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT CANNOT BE LEVIED ON SUCH DISALLOWANCE IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S RELIANCE PETROPROD UCTS (P) LTD. (322 ITR 158). CONCEALMENT PENALTY LEVIED ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. GROUND OF APPE AL NO. 3 IS ALLOWED. 12. IN OUR PINION LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THIS ISSUE. THOUGH THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING QU ANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN ITA NO. 429/CHD/2011 BECAUSE OF THE SMALLNESS OF THE AM OUNT, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT SECTION 14A HAS BECOME BONE OF CONTENTION AND ISSUES HAVE NOT BEEN FULLY SETTLED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND DIVERGENT VIEWS HA VE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IN OUR OPINION, LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 13. ON DISALLOWANCE ON REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED VIDE PARA 5.3 WHICH IS AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE. THE APPELLANT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS WITHOUT MAKING ANY SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING REPAI RS AND MAINTENANCE. I AM ENTIRELY IN AGREEMENT WITH T HE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT, SINCE DISALLOWANCE @1 % OF TOTAL INVESTMENT IN BUILDING WAS MADE ON ESTIMAT ED BASIS TO RESTRICT THE EXPENSES ON CURRENT REPAIRS O F THE BUILDING AND THIS WAS DONE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE ITAT IN A.Y. 2004-05. THE DISALLOWANCE IS PURELY AN ESTIMATE AND SO PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT CANNOT BE LEVIED IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARIGOPA L SINGH (258 ITR 85). THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT LEV IED 9 ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 IS ALLOWED. 14. IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDE D THE ISSUE. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND FINALLY DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AT RS. 1 LAKH DURING QUANTUM PROCEEDING IN ITA NO. 429/CHD/2011, THEREFORE, PENA LTY HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DELETED. 15. ON DISALLOWANCE OF DEFERRED TAX, PENALTY HAS BE EN DELETED VIDE PARA 6.3. WE AGREE WITH THE LD. CIT THAT CLAUSE (VIII) WAS IN SERTED TO EXPLANATION I BELOW SECTION 115JB (1) BY FINANCE ACT 2008 BUT WAS MADE RETROSPECTIVE. SINCE THE ASSESSEES CASE PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, NATURALLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT KNOW THAT RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT IS LIKELY TO BE COME LATER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW THE PENALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY LD . CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06.02.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 6 TH FEBRUARY,2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR