Shri Ashwin A.Shah, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle-2, Baroda

ITSSA 752/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0549 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 12-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 18-10-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Depreciation; Additional depreciation; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Deemed dividend
• Section: 153A; 139

Judgement Text

, , , , D, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, D BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ #$ #$ #$ # ## #. .. .# ## #. . . . % % % %, , , , &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' &' ( & ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2007-2008] ACIT, CIR.4 BARODA. /VS. SHRI ASHWIN A. SHAH 74, SAMPATRAO COLONY PRODUCTIVITY ROAD BARODA 390 007. PAN : ALPMS 1474 M IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2000-01, 2004-05 AND 2005-06] SHRI ASHWIN A. SHAH 74, SAMPATRAO COLONY PRODUCTIVITY ROAD BARODA 390 007. /VS. ACIT, CIR.4 BARODA. ( (( ( *+ *+ *+ *+ / APPELLANT) ( (( ( ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ ,-*+ / RESPONDENT) ( . / & / REVENUE BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.DR 12 . / & / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI 3 . 24' / DATE OF HEARING : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014 567 . 24' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-02-2015 &8 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE CO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2007- 08 AND APPEALS OF THE ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -2- ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2000-01, 2004-05 AND 20 05-06 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THESE ARE BEING D ISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 ASTT.YEAR 2007-08 (REVENUES APPEAL) 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AS UN DER: 1(I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,63,023/- ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS PROFIT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE AO HAD POINTED OUT V ARIOUS INFIRMITIES/DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW YIELD OF FINISHED PR ODUCT OF RS.19,63,023/- . 3. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN ABNOR MAL INCREASE IN THE CONSUMPTION OF POWER AND FUEL DURING THE RELEVANT P ERIOD AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE REASON THERETO, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS CONSUMPTION OF SODIUM ACETATE S OLUTION WAS 1776.81 MT DURING THE YEAR AS AGAINST 96.05 MT IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN SODIUM ACETATE CRUDE, THE CONSUMPTION WAS 681.00 MTS. AS AGAINST 1018.175 MT DURING THE PRECEDING YEAR. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WAS ALMOST THE SAME AS IT WAS DURING THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DET AILS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION OF POWER AND FUEL DURING TH E RELEVANT PERIOD. HE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THA T COMPLETE DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -3- REASON FOR INCREASE IN THE CONSUMPTION OF POWER AND FUEL, AS IT HAS CHANGED ITS PROCESS OF MANUFACTURING WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE HIGH CONSUMPTION OF SODIUM ACETATE SOLUTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT CHANGE IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS HAS RESULTED IN NET SAVINGS (NOTIONAL) AT RS.18,38,842/ - WHICH WAS DULY SHOWN TO THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO COULD NOT POINT O UT DEFECT IN THE DETAILS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSE E TO DECIDE THE METHODOLOGY OF ITS MANUFACTURING PROCESS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIO D. HE SUBMITTED THAT COMPLETE EXCISE RECORDS WERE MAINTAINED AND NO DEFE CT COULD BE POINTED OUT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE COST OF INPUT MATERIAL DURING THE YEAR WHICH HAS RESULTED IN THE LESSER GP. HE RELIE D ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THERE WAS AN ABNORMAL INCREASE IN THE PURCHASE OF POWER AND FUEL AS THE SODIUM ACETATE SOLUTION WAS P URCHASED AT 1776.81 MT DURING THE YEAR AS AGAINST 96.05 MT IN THE IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE FUEL COST HAS INCREASED FRO M RS.14.66 LAKHS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR TO RS.38.33 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCREASED DURING THE RELEVANT PERI OD. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WITH NEW MANUFACTURING PROCESS IT WAS ABLE TO SAVE A NET SAVING OF RS.18.38 LAKHS DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, IS NOT C ONVINCING FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE SAVINGS, IF MADE IN THE MANUFACTURI NG PROCESS, SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE OVERALL GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD WAS 26.28% AS COMPARED TO THE GP RA TE OF IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSTT.YEAR 2006-07 AT 32.03%. THE AO HAS RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW-MATE RIAL, POWER AND FUEL AND PRODUCTION RELATED REGISTER, STOCK REGISTER ETC. WE RE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DESPITE GIVING A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES. IN THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT WERE RIGHTL Y INVOKED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE GP RATE OF LAST YEAR AT 3 2.03% WAS APPLIED FOR THE ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -4- RELEVANT PERIOD, RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.19.63 LAKHS, WHICH SEEMS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAI N THAT THERE WAS INCREASE IN THE COST OF INPUT MATERIAL DURING THE YEAR, AND THERE W AS A CHANGE IN THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE RE LEVANT YEAR. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE PLEA DING OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET, IF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GP IS RESTRICTED TO RS.12,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.19,63,02 3/- MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE AP PEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LD.CIT( A) ERRED IN GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.26,30,779/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADV ANCE OF RS.43,05,779/- GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE COMPANY THROUGH ITS UN IT M/S.AKSHAY CHEMICALS (NIPL) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION IS CLEARLY HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 7. THE LEARNED DR REFERRED TO RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. HE SUBMITTED T HAT IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND AND THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE ENTIRE CREDIT SIDE OF ACCOUNT AND NOT RESTRICTING IT TO MERELY A PEAK AMO UNT OF THE CREDIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE NO COMMERCIAL RELATIONS B ETWEEN TWO ENTITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SEPARATE ENTITY OF M/S. AKSHAY CHEMICALS, AND THEREFORE, THE LEDGER ACCOUNT MAINTAINED IN THE BOO KS OF M/S.AKSHAY CHEMICALS WAS IN FACT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF NIPL AND ALSO SHA REHOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN 10% IN THE NIPL. HE SUBMITTED THAT A LL THE FOUR CONDITIONS LAID DOWN FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT ARE FULFILLED IN THIS CASE. 8. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THA T, IN PRINCIPLE, HE AGREES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -5- CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE AMOUNT ADDABLE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.15,44,232/- AS AGAINST R S.43,05,779/- ADDED BY THE AO AND RESTRICTED TO RS.16,75,000/- BY THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS AGREED WITH THE ASSESSEE IN PRINCIPLE TH AT ONLY AMOUNT OF RS.15,44,232/- WAS ADDABLE. BUT HE ALSO ADDED AN A MOUNT OF RS.66,742/- WHICH THE COMPANY HAD GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN FEBRUARY A ND MARCH, 2007 AND IGNORED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.64,000/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS DEEMED DIVIDEND TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16,75,000/- FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CROSS- OBJECTION SEPARATELY. HE REFERRED TO PAGE NO.15 AN D 16 OF THE COMPILATION WHICH SHOWS THAT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S.N ITROCHEM INDIA P. LTD. WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING AN OPENING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.40,000/- AND LIKEWISE, WHEREVER THERE WAS A CRED IT BALANCE, THE PAYMENT MADE UPTO THAT AMOUNT COULD NOT BE ADDED AS DEEMED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF M/S.NITROCHEM INDIA PVT. LTD. AS APPEARING AT PAGE NO.15 AND 16 OF THE COMPILATION FILED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE CIT( A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED SPEAKING ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. THE PAYMENT AGAINST THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE WORKING OF ADDITION AFTER ALLOWING ADJUSTMENTS OF THE AMOUNT PAYABLE ON THE DATE OF PAYMENT COMES TO RS.15,44,232/-. WE FI ND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ADDITION OF RS.16,75,000/- BY ADDING T HE FIGURE OF RS.66,742/- PAID TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE COMPANY IN FEBRUARY AND MARC H, 2007 IN THE FIGURE OF RS.15,44,232/- AND DIFFERENCE OF RS.64,000/- WAS IG NORED BEING A MEAGER AMOUNT. IN THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT THERE BEING NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -6- CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. CO NO.14/AHD/2011 ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 (ASSESSEES CO) 10. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES CO IS AS UNDE R: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD.AO IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,17,909/- TOWARDS ADDITIONAL DE PRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITIONS REQ UIRED FOR CLAIMING ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION ARE NOT FULFILLED. THE DIS ALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW I S PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 11. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE PLANT & MACHINERY. THE LEARNED DR RELIES ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE MACHINERY DURING THE YEAR WAS NEW AND EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE FORM OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE OF OLD MACHINERY OR ADDITION THERETO. IN THESE FACTS, WE HOLD THAT NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CALLED FOR, WHICH IS CONFIRM ED AND THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES CO IS AS UNDE R: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD .AO IN MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,75,000/- TOWARDS DEEMED DIVID END WHEN IN FACT, THE DEEMED DIVIDEND WORKS OUT TO RS.15,44,232/-. T HE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN FACTS AND IN LAW IS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. 13. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. FOR REASONS RECORDE D WHILE DISPOSING OF THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RELEVANT ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -7- ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS O RDER, WE HOLD THAT THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IT(SS)A.NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 ASSTT.YEAR 2 000-01, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 (ASSESSEES APPEALS): 14. IDENTICAL GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACT IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF [R S.21,000/- FOR A.Y.2000- 01, RS.1,00,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05 AND RS.8,45,000/- FOR A.Y.2005-06] IN COMPLETE DISREGARD OF LAW AND THE FACTS AND, THUS, THE PENALTY OF [RS.21,000/- FOR A.Y.2000-01, RS.1,00,000/- FOR A.Y .2004-05 AND RS.8,45,000/- FOR A.Y.2005-06] IS PRAYED TO BE CANC ELLED. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED AFTER S EARCH UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF THE THIRD MEMBER OF THE JURISDICTIONAL AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL, (2009) 129 ITD 159(AHD)(TM). HE SUBMITTED T HAT THIS DECISION HAS BEEN REVERSED IN APPEAL BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT IN TAX APPEAL NO.1181, 1182 AND 1185 OF 20 10 ORDER DATED 3.12.2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF HONB LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING, AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHOULD BE CA NCELLED. THE LEARNED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A), AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ITA NO.3329/AHD/2010 WITH CO NO.14/AHD/2011 AND IT(SS)A NO.751, 752 AND 753/AHD/2010 -8- IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE A DDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED AFTER THE SEARCH, IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IS COVERED WITH THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN HELD THAT IN VIEW OF SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE IT, ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS RETURN FILED UND ER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT, AS THE AO HAS MADE ASSESSMENT ON THE SAID RETURN AND T HEREFORE, THE RETURN IS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AND THE PENALTY IS TO BE LEVIED AS INCOME ASSESSED OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED UNDER SECTION 153A, IF ANY. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THAT THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT I N KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (SUPRA), THE ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR ALL T HREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CANCELLED, AND THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE FOR ALL THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR TH E ASSTT.YEAR 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSTT .YEAR 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEARS 200 0-01, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( # ## # . .. . # ## # . . . . % % % % /N.S.SAINI) &' ( &' ( &' ( &' ( /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT