Gupta Domestic Fuels(Nagpur)Ltd., Nagpur V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cent.Circle-2(3), Nagpur

ITSSA 6/NAG/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1765 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Revision of order; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 5(2); 153A; 263; 132

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. IT(SS) A NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05. GUPTA DOMESTIC FUELS (NAGPUR) LIMITED, DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, NAGPUR. VS. CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), NAGPUR. PAN AAACG 5230D. (APPELLAN T) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH LOYA. RESPONDENT : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 02 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 ST MARCH, 2016. O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. ALL THE THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 DATED 30 TH AUGUST, 2011 AND 22 ND AUGUST, 2011. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS.53 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, RS.28 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND RS.17 LAKHS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05. FOR ALL THE YEARS IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. KEEPING BREVITY IN MIND, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03, THE LEAD YEAR, ARE REPRODUCED BELOW : 1. THAT THE PENALTY OF THE AO IS BAD IN LAW AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AND THE ORDER IS IN CON FORMITY AND ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY WITH REGARDS TO INITIATION AND LIMITATION. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ORD ER SUFFERS FROM LEGAL INFIRMITY AND BARRED BY LIMITATION. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE OFFER OF SURRENDER OF INCOME IS NOT COVERED U/S.132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE S URRENDER OF INCOME WAS WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4) AND PENALTY LEVIED IS BAD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE AO ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.53 LACS U/S. 271(1)(C) AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CO N FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RETURNED AND ASSESSED INCOME IS SAME AND HENCE NO PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IS DETERMINABLE. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER IS UNJUSTIFIED. 2. SINCE THE REASON FOR INVOCATION OF PENALTY IN ALL THE YEARS APPEARS TO BE IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE FACTS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03, THE FIRST YEAR, WHICH SHALL BE APPLIED FOR REST OF THE YEARS. 2.1 INITIALLY A RETURN WAS FILED ON 07 - 10 - 2002 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.10,6 6 ,530/ - . A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132 ON 24 - 12 - 2003. CONSE QUENTLY A NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED AND IN COMPLIANCE A RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,43,26,560/ - . THE SAID RETURN CONTAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,00,000/ - STATED TO BE SURRENDERED ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL. THEREAFTER AN ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED ON 31 - 03 - 2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.4,21,28,970/ - . HOWEVER, WHEN THE MATTER GONE IN APPEAL, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE AN ORDER DATED 24 - 05 - 2007 HAS DELETED THOSE ADDITIONS. 3 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 2.2 SUBSEQUENTLY AN ORDER U/S 263 DATED 25 - 03 - 2008 WAS PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER AND THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) BY THE AO DATED 31 - 03 - 2006 WAS SET ASIDE. THEREUPON AN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 263 WAS COMPLETED ON 29 - 12 - 2008. ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSMENT FINALLY COMPLETED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) WAS ISSUED. 2.3 WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) VIDE ORDER DATED 24 - 04 - 2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 THE AO HAD REPRODUCED ALL THOSE FACTS THAT INITIALLY A RETURN U/S 139(1) WAS FILED WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED CO NSEQUENCE UPON A SEARCH U/S 132 OF I.T. ACT WHICH CONTAINED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,00,000/ - . THE AO HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ALTHOUGH AN ASSESSMENT U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) WAS MADE ON 31 - 03 - 2006 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.4,21,2 9,607/ - BUT WHEN THE SAID ORDER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR VIDE AN ORDER NO. CIT(A)I/224/2006 - 07 ORDER DATED 24 - 05 - 2007 THOSE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. 2.4 THE REASON GIVEN BY THE AO FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS THA T AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,32,60,030/ - WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE RETURN FILED ON 29 - 03 - 2006 IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF I.T. ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DISCLOSED ONLY BECAUSE OF THE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. AS A CONSEQUENCE A PENALTY WAS IMPOSED OF RS.53 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME SURRENDERED AS PER RETURN OF RS.1,32,60,030/ - . 2.5 LIKEWISE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) DATED 24 - 04 - 2009 THAT A RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) WAS FILED ON 27 - 11 - 2003 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.5,99,524/ - . A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED ON 24 - 12 - 2003. IN COMPLIANCE TO A NOTICE U/S 153A A RETURN WAS FILED ON 28 - 03 - 2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.72,92,810/ - . AN 4 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 ASSESSMENT U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) WAS MADE ON 31 - 03 - 2006 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,67,16,200/ - . HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DELETED BY CIT(APPEALS), NAGPUR VIDE ORDER DATED 25 - 05 - 2007. THE AO HAD INVOKED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED OF RS.66,93,286/ - ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. A PENAL TY WAS LEVIED OF RS.28 LAKHS ON THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.66,93,286/ - . 2.6 LIKEWISE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSED VIDE AN ORDER DATED 24 - 04 - 2009 ON THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.40 LAKHS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 28 - 03 - 2006 OF RS.17 LAKHS. 3. FOR ALL THE YEARS THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS DISMISSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : - AFTER CAREFULLY ANALYSING THE FACTS I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT INCOME SURRENDERED IS MORE THAN INCOME EARNED VIOLATES THE CON DITION LAID DOWN IN EXPLANATION 5(2) TO S 271 (1) (C) THAT THE MODE OF EARNING OF INCOME IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED. THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS DO NOT EXTEND OR OFFER A BLANKET IMMUNITY TO ANY ASSESSEE WHEN ANY OFFER IS MADE SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND NO WHERE STATES THAT THE MANNER AND MODE OF EARNING INCOME IS IMMATERIAL. IN FACT IT IS VERY VITAL FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THE DISCLOSURE IS TRUE AND COMPLETE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY STATED THAT EXCESS INCOME IS OFFERED BEYOND WHAT IS EARNED. THE ACT DOES N OT PROVIDE IMMUNITY IN SUCH CASES. IT IS NECESSARY TO NOTE THAT ONCE A DISCLOSURE U/S. 132 (4) THE MODE OF EARNING OF SUCH INCOME IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE SPECIFIED TO CLAIM IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THIS IS WITH A VIEW TO ENSURING THAT THE QUALIT Y OF INCOME OFFERED IS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD AND SOURCES ARE ASCERTAINABLE. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE PLEA HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT EVEN THE SURRENDERED INCOME DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY KNOWN SOURCES. IN SUCH A CASE THE ONLY CONCLUSION POSSIBLE IS THAT WHEN ASSESSEE HAS NOT CAME FORWARD TO MAKE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS EARNED. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) IN SUCH CASES. 5 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 IN CONCLUSION I FIND THAT THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN PROV ISION OF EXPLANATION 5(2) OF SECTION 271 (1) (C) HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY APPELLANT. THEREFORE PENALTY IS CLEARLY LEVIABLE U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LEARNED A.R. MR. RAJESH LOYA APPEARED AND AT THE OUTSET NARRATED THE CHRONOLOGICAL POSITION OF THE RETURNS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. LEARNED A.R. HAS TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED U/S 139(1) STOOD MERGED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS FILE D IN CONSEQUENCE OF A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. THE SAID RETURN INCLUDED THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED. IN ANY CASE THE FINAL POSITION WAS THAT A RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE OF A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE I.T. ACT AND THAT RETURNED INCOME W AS ACCEPTED AS IT WAS FOR ALL THE YEARS BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. 4.1 ONE MORE FACT HAS ALSO BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS SUBJECT TO REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT, ORDER DATED 29 - 03 - 2006. PURSUANT TO THAT ORDER U/S 263, AGAIN THE AO HAS PASSED AN ORDER U/S 153 READ WITH SECTION 143(3)/READ WITH SECTION 263 OF I. T . ACT. LEARNED A.R. HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE INCOME WHICH WAS SURRENDERED WAS NOT THE PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. CERTAIN OTHER ADDI TIONS WERE SUGGESTED. HOWEVER, WHEN A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3)/READ WITH SECTION 263 VIDE ORDER DATED 29 - 12 - 2008 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 THE INCOME WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 250 ORDER DATED 02 - 08 - 2007 WAS TAXED ON THAT VERY AMOUNT OF RS.1,43,26,560/ - . IN SHORT, LEARNED A.R. HAS PLEADED THAT WHEN THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT WAS ASSESSED AND THE RETURNED INCOME WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT. FOR THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) SHRI PARAG M. SINGHVI, MUMBAI VS. DCIT (ITAT MUMBAI) DT.23 - 11 - 2015. 6 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 II) ACIT VS. SHRI SAMEER N. SHAH, MUMBAI (ITAT MUMBAI) DT.10 - 06 - 2015 . III) PREM ARORA VS. DCIT [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 260 (DELHI). IV) DCIT VS. PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA [2013] 35 TAXMANN.COM 594 (NAGPUR TRIB.). V) SMT. PRAMILA D. ASHTEKAR VS. ITO [2013] 39 TAXMANN.COM 103 (PUNE TRIB.). 4.2 APART FROM THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS LEARNED A.R. MR. RAJESH LOYA HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION ON AN ANOTHER FACT THAT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3)/READ WITH SECTION 263 THE AO HAD NOT INITIATED CONCEALMENT PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ANY PARTICULAR INCOME BUT HE HAS MENTIONED AT THE END OF THE ORDER THAT THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF I.T. ACT, IN THE VIEW OF THE SAME WAS INITIATED IN THE ORDER U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) DATED 31 - 03 - 2006. LEARNED A.R. HAS THEN POINTED OUT THAT EVEN IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) DAT E D 31 - 03 - 2006 NO SPECIFIC SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR CONCEALED INCOME BUT AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR ADDITIONS MADE. THEREFORE, THE ARGUM ENT OF THE LEARNED A.R. IS THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL ADDITIONS MADE HOWEVER THE PENALTY WAS NOT INITIATED IN RESPECT OF THOSE ADDITIONS. T HERE WAS NO PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME DECLARED OF RS.1,43,26,560/ - WHICH CONSISTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,04,00,000/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED A.R. HAS, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THIS IS A CASE WHERE NO PENALTY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS EVER SUGGESTED OR INITIATED AT ANY STAGE OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSE E. HENCE THE AO WENT WRONG IN PENALISING THE ASSESSEE U/S 271(1) (C) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER NOW UNDER CHALLENGE IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED D.R. MR. NARENDRA KANE APPEARED AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE AO. HE HAS REITERATED THAT CONSEQUEN T UPON THE SEARCH A HUGE AMOUNT WAS UNEARTHED ON WHICH THE TAX WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT AMOUNT WAS NOTHING BUT THE CONCEALED INCOME ON WHICH PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY IMPOS ED. HE HAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALSO COVERED BY THE IMMUNITY GRANTED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) VIDE AN EXPLANATION FILED OF THE SAID SECTION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES A T SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE ALSO CAREF ULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATION FILED CONTAINING THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 2 4 - 06 - 2009. MERELY TO PUT ALL THE INFORMATION IN THIS JUDGMENT AND TO COMPLETE THE EVENTS HAPPENED IT IS HEREBY MENTIONED THAT THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 16 TH JUNE, 2009 HAD AFFIRMED THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 263 OF I.T. ACT. SIDE BY SIDE IT IS ALSO WORTH TO MENTIONING THAT THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AFFIRMING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 HAD NO EFFECT OR BEARING ON THE ISSUE OF CONCEALMENT PENALTY NOW UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US. THE BASIC REASON IS THAT THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER WHILE PASSING THE REVISION ORDER WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 153A/143(3)/263 ON THE SAME INCOME AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY ASSESSED. 6.1 THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE, INTER ALIA, IS THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE ACCEPTED FACTUAL POSITION WAS THAT CONSEQUEN T UPON A SEARCH AN AMOUNT WAS SURRENDERED AND OFFERED TO TAX BY FILING A RETURN U/S 153A AND THAT RETURNED INCOME WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED WITHOUT ANY ALTERATION THEN WHETHER THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THAT P O R TION OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SEARCH OPERATION. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN SEVERAL CASES, SOME OF THEM HAVE BEEN CITED SUPRA. IN THE CASE OF 8 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 DCIT VS. PURTI SAKHAR KARKHANA 35 TAXMANN.COM 594 (NAGPUR TRIBUNAL) A VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT WHERE THE RETURNED INCOME FILED U/S 153A WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THERE WAS NO VARIATION IN THE ASSESSED INCOME VIZ - A - VIZ THE RETURNED INCOME, PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED B Y THE RESPECTED COORDINATE BENCH THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN RESPECT OF A PARTICULAR INCOME WHICH IN HIS OPINION WAS CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING BREVITY IN MIND, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DISCUSS REST OF THE PREC EDENTS IN EXTENSO AND HEREBY HOLD THAT UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE IMPUGNED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. AS A RESULT, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AR E HEREBY REVERSED AND DIRECTED TO DELETE THE PENALTY. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 31 ST MARCH, 2016. 9 IT(SS)A.NOS. 06,07&08/NAG/2011 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. GUPTA DOMESTIC FUELS (NAGPUR) LTD. C/O LOYA BAGRI & CO., GANDHIBAGH, NAGPUR. 2. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(3), NAGPUR. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX - ,NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - I, NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER WAKODE. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR