MS. TORAL D. PATEL, Baroda v. THE ACIT-CC-II, Baroda

ITA 1189/AHD/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 118920514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AERPP0993M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1189/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant MS. TORAL D. PATEL, Baroda
Respondent THE ACIT-CC-II, Baroda
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 18-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 31-10-2011
Next Hearing Date 31-10-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 16-04-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.1186-1190 / AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 & 2006-07) MS. TORAL D PATEL KRISHNA COMPOUND NEW KHANDERAO MARKET PRATAPNAGAR BARODA VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2 BARODA I.T.A.NO. 1191 & 1192/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 & 2005-06 MS. PRIYA A PATEL VS. ACIT CIRCLE 2 KRISHNA COMPOUND BARODA NEW KHANDERAO MARKET PRATAPNAGAR BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : AERPP0993M / AEQPP0877A (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI M K PATEL AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAKESH AGRAWAL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 31.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.11.2011 O R D E R PER BENCH:- ALL THESE SEVEN APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TWO DIFFERENT CONNECTED CASES I.E. IN THE CASE OF MS. TORAL D PAT EL AND IN THE CASE OF MS. PRIYA A PATEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 2001-02 2004-05 2005-06 & 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF MS. TORAL D PATEL AND IN ASSESSMENT I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 2 YEARS 2004-05 & 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF MS. PRIYA A PATEL AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS ONLY ONE I.E. REGARDIN G CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/ S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE AS HWIN K PATEL GROUP ON 24.11.2005. NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 24.03.20 06 IN ALL THESE CASES AND IN COMPLIANCE THERETO THE ASSESSEES FILED RETU RN OF INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS DECLARING INCOME HIGHER T HAN THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THEM FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS U/S 139(1) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961. IN ADDITION TO THIS AS PER LETTER DATED 10.12.2007 I N THE CASE OF MS. TORAL D PATEL ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED FOR VARIOUS Y EARS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED ON FDRS OF THE MINOR SON MASTER SH EEL PATEL ON FD WITH BARODA CITY COOPERATIVE BANK FOR RS.11211/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 RS.12956/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 RS.18670/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 RS.12130/- FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2005-06 AND RS.13130/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. SI MILARLY IN THE CASE OF MS. PRIYA A PATEL ALSO ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLA RED BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 10.12.2007 SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECL ARED BY THIS ASSESSEE ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT INCOME SAVING BAN K ACCOUNT INTEREST AND TATA COMMISSION BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HERSE LF OF RS.18950/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.122437/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A AS COMPARED TO INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 AND ALSO FOR THE ADDITIONA L INCOME DECLARED BY WAY OF LETTER 10.12.2007 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS THE I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 3 A.O. IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN ADDITION TO THIS IN THE CASE OF MS. PRIYA A PATEL THE A.O. ALSO IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S15 3A BY STATING THAT LOSS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A IS N OT VERIFIABLE AND THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWED. THE AMOUNT OF LOSS SO DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 153A WAS RS.9 1 000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND RS.104429/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06. BEING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDERS THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTERS IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NO W BOTH THESE ASSESSEES ARE IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE AS SESSEE THAT SO FAR THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. ON THE EXCESS INCOM E DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A AS COMPARED TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THEM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY THEM U/S 139(1) THIS ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF THIRD MEMBER OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHRI DAYABHAI PATEL AS REPORTED IN 121 ITD (TM) 15 9 (AHD.). STILL HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COU RT OF CALCUTTA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHAND BANSAL AS REPORTED IN 22 DTR 01 IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION THAT NO PENALT Y IS IMPOSABLE ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN TH E PRESENT CASE BECAUSE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE THE INCOME ASSESSED WAS NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY SEIZED MATERIAL BUT IT WAS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 153A IS I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 4 SUPPORTED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE TH IS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN TH E PRESENT CASE. ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT SO FAR ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES BY WAY OF LETTER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THIS 3 RD MEMBER DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT APPLICABLE AND NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED WITH REGARD TO SUCH AD DITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. ONE MORE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY HIM REGARDING PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FI ELD BY MS. PRIYA A PATEL U/S 153A. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BUT SINCE NO BASI S HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF LOSS DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 153A NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED WITH REGARD TO SUCH LOSS DECLARED BY HER IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 153A. 4. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS DAYABHAI P ATEL (SUPRA). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. THERE ARE THREE ASPECTS IN THE PRESENT CASE. FIRST ASPECT IS OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES U/S 153A AS COMPARED TO THE INCOME DECLARED BY THEM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY THEM U/S 139. ON THIS ASPECT IT WAS FAIRLY ADMITTED BY THE LD. A .R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF AHMEDABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CAS E OF ACIT VS SHRI I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 5 DAYABHAI PATEL (SUPRA). FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS AS PECT EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS REPRODUCED HERE: 271(1): IF THE A.O. OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON- (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME EXPLANATION 5.- EXPLANATION 5. WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A 16 [SEARCH INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2007] THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY BUL LION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING (HEREAFTER IN THIS EXPLANATION REFERRED TO AS ASSETS) AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ASS ETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILISING (WHOLLY OR IN PART) HI S INCOME ( A ) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH BUT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE OR WHERE SUCH RETUR N HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED THEREIN ; OR ( B ) FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS TO END ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT SUCH INCOME IS DECLARED BY HIM IN ANY RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH HE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF A PENALTY UNDER CLAUSE ( C ) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION BE DEEMED TO HA VE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME 17 [UNLESS ( 1 ) SUCH INCOME IS OR THE TRANSACTIONS RESULTING IN SUCH INCOME ARE RECORDED ( I ) IN A CASE FALLING UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ; AND ( II ) IN A CASE FALLING UNDER CLAUSE ( B ) ON OR BEFORE SUCH DATE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IF ANY MAINTAINED BY HI M FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME OR SUCH INCOME IS OTHERWISE DISCLOSED TO THE 18 [CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER] BEFORE THE SAID DATE ; OR ( 2 ) HE IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH MAKES A STATEMEN T UNDER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 THAT ANY MONEY BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND IN HIS POSSES SION OR UNDER I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 6 HIS CONTROL HAS BEEN ACQUIRED OUT OF HIS INCOME WH ICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED SO FAR IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME SPECIFIED IN 19 [* * *] SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND ALSO SPECIFIES IN THE STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IF ANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME.] 6. AS PER CLAUSE (2) OF EXCEPTIONS TO EXPLANATION ( 5) IF THE ASSESSEE MAKES A STATEMENT U/S SUB-SECTION (4) TO SECTION 13 2 THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED SO FAR IN THE RETURN O F INCOME TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN SUB-SECTION (1) TO SECTION 139 EXPLANATION (5) IS NOT APPLICABLE. IT GOES TO SHOW THAT IN CASE WHERE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INC OME AS SPECIFIED U/S 139(1) HAS NOT EXPIRED AND THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TH E ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND ALSO SPECIFIES IN SUCH STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAID THE T AX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST IF ANY IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME THEN NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE WITH REGARD TO SUCH INCOME U/S 271(1)(C). IN THE PRESEN T CASE THE FACTS ARE SUCH THAT IT IS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) HAD NOT EXPIRED. THE SEARCH IN THESE C ASES WAS CARRIED ON 24.11.2005 AND HENCE ADMITTEDLY THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAD ALREADY EX PIRED BY THAT TIME. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SUCH DUE DATE FOR FILI NG OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) HAD NOT EXPIRED BY THE DATE OF SEARCH BU T THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THAT SHE IS COMPLYING WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF CLAUSE (2) OF EXCEPTION TO EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) B Y SHOWING THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THIS VERY INCOME IN THE STATE MENT RECORDED UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 AND HAD SPECIFIED I N SUCH STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND TH E TAX ALONG WITH THE I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 7 INTEREST ON SUCH INCOME WAS PAID. HENCE THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT GET BENEFIT OF EXCEPTIONS OF EXPLANATION (5) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY THIS DECISION OF THIRD MEMBER OF AHMEDA BAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHRI DAYAB HAI PATEL IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE BY RESPEC TFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS FIRST ASPECT. HERE WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD. A.R. OF THE AS SESSEE RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHAND BANSAL (SUPRA). THIS JU DGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESEN T CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. IN THAT CASE THE PENALTY WAS DELETE D BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ON THIS BASIS THAT OFFER OF RS.24.04 LAC S AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME WAS BASED ON THE OFFER FOR TAX IN SPIRIT OF SETTLEMENT AND THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT MADE TO OBTAIN THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOTED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE THA T THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE IS CONCLUSION BASED O N THE OFFER OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDIT IONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES IS NOT ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUM ENTS AND HENCE THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IS NOT APPL ICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. 7. NOW WE DISCUSS AND DECIDE THE 2 ND ASPECT THAT FOR THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF LETTER BE FORE THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PENALTY IS NOT JUS TIFIED. ON THIS ASPECT ALSO WE FIND THAT NO SEPARATE TREATMENT IS REQUIRE D BECAUSE EVEN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THESE ASSESSEES U/S 153A CORRECT INCOME WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEES AND THEREAFTER IN TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 8 PROCEEDINGS BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 10.12.2007 ADD ITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED FOR VARIOUS YEARS. IN ONE OF THE CASES I. E. IN THE CASE OF MS. TORAL D PATEL ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IS ON ACC OUNT OF CLUBBING OF INCOME FOR INCOME PERTAINING TO THE MINOR SON MAST ER SHEEL PATEL ON FD WITH BARODA CITY COOPERATIVE BANK BUT IN THE SECOND CASE I.E. IN THE CASE OF MS. PRIYA A PATEL THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARE D IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF MINORS INCOME BUT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS ALSO B ELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HERSELF. SINCE CORRECT INCOME WAS NOT DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEES EVEN IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THEM U/S 15 3A NO SEPARATE TREATMENT IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES BY WAY OF LETTER TO THE A.O. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. NOW WE DISCUSS AND DECIDE THE 3 RD ASPECT I.E. REGARDING PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE A.O. ON THE LOSS DECLARED BY MS. PRI YA A PATEL IN HER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 153A. WE FIND TH AT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THIS ASSESSEE THAT LESSER LOSS WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE TWO YEARS AS COMPARED TO T HE LOSS DECLARED BY HER IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 139. EVEN FOR SUCH LESSER LOSS DECLARED BY THESE ASSESSEES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HER U/S 153A THE A.O. HELD THAT SUCH LOSS CANNOT BE ALLOWED BECA USE THE SAME IS NOT VERIFIABLE. ALTHOUGH NO APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS DECISION OF THE A.O. FOR N OT ALLOWING LOSS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FI LED U/S 153A IN THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IT IS SUBMITTED BEFO RE US THAT NO PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED ON SUCH IGNORANCE OF LOSS BECAUSE THE SAM E IS WITHOUT GIVING ANY COGENT REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THE LOSS. WHEN WE G O THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS MENTION ED THAT SINCE THE LOSS I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 9 IS NOT VERIFIABLE THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWED. WE FIN D FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. BECAUSE NO REASON HAS BE EN SPECIFIED BY THE A.O. FOR REJECTING THE CLAIM OF LOSS AND HE HAS SIM PLY STATED THAT SINCE THE LOSS IS NOT VERIFIABLE THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWED. T HERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALTY ORDER AS TO WHAT WAS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE A.O. IN ORDER TO GET LOSS VERIFI ED WHICH COULD NOT BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS WE FEEL THAT ALTHOUGH THE DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS HAS BECOME FINAL BECAUSE NO APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BU T ON SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS NO PENALTY IS JUSTIFIED IN TH E FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THERE IS NO COGENT REASON GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR DISALLOWING THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED BY HER U/S 153A. WE THEREFORE HOLD THAT ON THIS ASPECT PEN ALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE. 9. IN THE RESULT ALL THE 5 APPEALS FILED BY MS. TO RAL D PATEL ARE DISMISSED WHEREAS REMAINING TWO APPEALS FILED BY MS . PRIYA A PATEL ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (G. C. GUPTA) (A. K. GARODIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR ITAT AHMEDABAD I.T.A.NO.1186-1192 /AHD/2009 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION 8/11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 8/11.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.16/11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 18/11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.18/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 18/11/2011 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..