M/s.Lissie Hospital, Cochin v. The JTCIT(TDS), Cochin

ITA 163/COCH/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 16321914 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAATL1070D
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 163/COCH/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant M/s.Lissie Hospital, Cochin
Respondent The JTCIT(TDS), Cochin
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 26-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 26-09-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 08-04-2016
Judgment Text
ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH KOCHI BEFORE S/ SHRI B P JAIN AM & GEORGE GEORGE K JM ITA NO 161 TO 163 /COCH/2016 (A SST YEAR S 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 ) LISSIE HOSPITAL LISSIE HOSPITAL ROAD KOCHI 682 018 VS JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX(TDS) C.R.BUILDING I.S.PRESS ROAD KOCHI 682 018 ( APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AAATL1070D ASSESSEE BY SHRI T. JOHN GEORGE ADV. REVENUE BY SH A DHANARAJ SR DR DATE OF HEARING 27 TH SEPT 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28TH SEPT 2016 O RDER PER GEORGE GEORGE K JM : THESE ARE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A) ALL DATED 25/01/2016. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE APPE ALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: - THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING LISSIE HOSPITAL. IT IS A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION ENJOYING THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 11 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08 ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCES. IT WAS FOUND THAT TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED FROM THE REN TS PAID TO ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM WHOSE PROPERTY ASSESSEE HAD HIRED FOR THE PURPOSE ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 2 OF RUNNING THE HOSPITAL ACTIVITIES. ( IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THERE WAS NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX FROM BROKERAGE PAID ON SALE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY ALSO). FOR THE DEFAULT IN NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE WITH REGARD TO THE RENTAL PAYMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IMPOSED PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08. THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS: - ASST.YEAR PENALTY LEVIED 2005 - 06 RS. 34 928 2006 - 07 RS. 29 376 2007 - 08 RS. 28 356 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL S TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL S OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES IMPOSED U/S. 271C OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IDENTICAL GROUNDS ARE RAISED FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEY READ AS UNDER: - THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME' TAX (APPEAL S) - III KOCHI IN ITA NO.225/TDS / KOCHI/CIT(A) - III/2008 - 09 DATED 25 - 1 - 2016 IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C OF THE IT A CT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT A PENALTY IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE WAS NOT EXIGIBLE. IN THE LIGHT OF THE PRINCIPLES APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BANK OF SCOTIA [380 ITR 550(SC)] 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT IN THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT THE APEX COURT HAD ALSO INDIRECTLY APPROVED THE DECISIONS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF M / S ITOCHU CORPORATION VS. CIT [268 ITR 172(DEL)] AND CIT VS. MITSUI & COMPANY LTD.[ 278 ITR 545(DEL)] APPROV ING CANCELLATION PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE L EARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HA V E NOTED THAT FOR A LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271C THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN TH E ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THIS A LEVY OF PENALTY WAS NOT WARRANTED AND THE HENCE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 3 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS OMITTED TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS NOS. 3 4 5 6 & 7 RAISED IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAR BEFORE HIM. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THESE GROUNDS ESPECIALLY THAT THOUGH SEVERAL CRORES OF RUPEES WERE DISBURSED TO ITS DOCTORS/ EMPLOYEES BY WAY OF PROFESSIONAL FEES SALARIES AND OTHER PAYMENTS NO OTHER OMISSIONS OR DEFAULTS COULD BE DETECTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTER OF TAX DEDUCTION AND AN' ACCIDENTAL OMISSION TO DEDUCT TAX ON A COMPARATIVELY SMALL AMOUNTS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY VIEWED AND PENALTY LEVIED. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I N COME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THESE GROUNDS ON MERITS. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE MAIN ALLEGED DEFAULT WAS THE NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE FROM THE RENT PAID TO THE ARCH DIOCESE OF ERNAKULA M . TO THE BEST OF KNOWLEDGE O F THE APPELLANT LIKE THE APPELLA NT THE PAYEE IS ALSO A CHARI TAB LE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION HAVING A PAN (NUMBER BEING - AAATA 3730F) AND ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S. 11OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT WAS THEREFORE UNDER A BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT BEING A PAYMENT TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE I RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION NO TAX NEED BE DEDUCTED FROM THE RENT PAID TO THAT INSTITUTION. THE OMISSION WAS AS A RESULT OF A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION. MOREOVER THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS A MARGINAL ONE BEING AT THE RATE OF RS. 12 000 PER MONTH. SIMILARLY THE FAILURE TO DEDUCT TAX F ROM COMMISSION PAID TO A BROKER (RS. 1 56 870) ON SALE OF LAND WAS DUE TO SHEER IGNORANCE ABOUT THE PROVISIONS AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT GET PROPER ADVICE IN THE MATTER IN TIME. MOREOVER A SALE OF LAND BY A CHARITAB LE INSTITUTION WAS NOT A REGULAR AFFAIR AND THAT ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO THE LAPSE. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT TP1E LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 2 71C THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAD ALREADY BEEN REMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SOON AS THE OMISSION WAS POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF AN 'EXPLANATION' SIMILAR TO ONE AVAILABLE BELOW SECTION 2 21(1) OF THE IT ACT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT A PENALTY U /S 271C COULD HAVE BEEN LEVIED ONLY WHEN THE DEFAULT CONTINUED AT THE TIME OF LEVYING THE PENALTY. 8. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT RELIED ON BY HIM IN CONFIRMING THE PENA LT Y WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IN SO FAR AS IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REMITTED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO T HE GOVT. BUT HAD DI VERTED THE SAME FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE THERE WAS NO SUCH SITUATION. THE APPELLANT BEING A CHARITABLE INSTITUTION IS ANSWERABLE BOTH TO THE CENTRAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS FOR EVERY RUPEE IT COLLECTED AND THE QUESTION OF DIVE RSION OF ITS FUNDS DID NOT ARISE. 9. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271C CANCELLED. ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 4 4.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS IDENTICAL FOR ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED READ S AS FOLLOWS: - THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271C WAS LEVIABLE BY THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND HENCE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR THE LEVY OF SUCH PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY' THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX AND HENCE THE INITIATION OF P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271C WAS AB - INITIO VOID. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OUGHT TO HA VE THEREFORE CANCELLED THE PENALTY SINCE THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HAS NOT PROPERLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. THE BRIEF WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED READ AS FOLLOWS: - 3. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH WAS COMMON TO ALL THE 3 ASST. YEARS UNDER APPEAL. THIS IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY A PENALTY U/ S. 271C WAS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T2X BUT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS ISSUED BY T HE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HER. SINCE THERE WAS NO PROPER INITIATION OF THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY THE INITIATION OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AB INITIO INVALID AND HENCE THE VERY LEVY OF PE NALTY IS ALSO INVALID. COPIES OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS) FOR THE 3 ASST. YEARS ARE INCLUDED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS PAGE NUM BER 4 5 & 6. THE REPLY FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS AVAILA BLE AS PAGE N O. 7 ( OF COURSE THE REPLY TO THE PENALTY NOTICE WAS ADDRESSED TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COME TAX AS THE AUTHORITY TO LEVY THE PENALTY AS PER LAW WAS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER - OF INCOME T AX). IT IS A FUNDAMENTAL RULE THAT ONE OF THE CRITERIO N FOR COMPLYING WITH NATURAL JUSTICE IS THAT B EFORE A MATTER IS DECIDED AGAINST A TAX PAYER HE SHOULD BE GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD BY THE OFFICER WHO DECIDES THE MATTER. HERE OF COURSE THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED Y THE JOINT COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX BUT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUE D BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND NOT BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. FOR THIS VERY REASON THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PROPER INITIATION OF PENAL PROCEEDINGS AS ENVISAGED BY LAW. TO SUPPORT THIS ARGUMENT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GRIHALAKSHMI VISION VS. ADD L . CIT IS CITED. IN THIS CASE THOUGH THE ISSUE DECIDED WAS THE TIME LIMIT FOR IMPOSING PENALTIES U/S S. 271 D AND 271E IN ITS JUDGMENT WHILE OBSERVING ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 5 T HAT THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THERE IS AN OBITER TO THE EFFECT THAT: . SUCH INITIATION IS BY AN AUTHORITY WHO IS INCOMPETENT AND THE PROCEEDINGS THEREAFTER WOULD BE PROCEEDIN GS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IF THAT BE SO THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS ONLY WITH THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME .TAX TO THE ASSESSEE [VIDE PAR - A 10 OF THE JUDGMENT] A COP Y OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 8 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE THOUGH THE INITIAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER LATER THE JOINT COMMISSIONER HAD ISSUED ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND FOR THIS REASON THE PENAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE VALIDLY INITIATED. IN FURTHERANCE TO THIS JUDGMENT THE CB D T ISSUED A CIRCULAR NO.9/ D OF 2016 DATED 26/04/2016 WHEREIN ABOUT THE ISSUE OF NOTICES U/SS 271 D /E IT WAS INTER ALIA INSTRUCTED THAT: THE ASSESSING OFFICER ( BELOW THE RANK OF JOINT COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX) SHALL NOT ISSUE THE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD. THE RANGE HEAD WILL ISSUE THE PENALTY NOTICE AND SHALL DISPOSE! COMPLETE THE PROCEEDINGS . ' [EMPHASIS SUPPLIED] A COPY OF THE SAID CIRCULAR OF THE CB D T IS AVAILABLE AS PAGES 22 AND 23 I N THE PAPER BOOK. THOUGH THE JUDGEMENT AND THE CIRCULAR ARE IN CONNECTION WITH THE LEVY OF PENALTIES U/SS 271 D AND 271E SINCE PENALTY U/S 271C IS ALSO TO BE LEVIED BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LIKE THOSE U/SS 271 D AND 271E THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE AND THE CB D T'S DIRECTIONS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CIRCULAR HOLD GOOD FOR THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271C IN THE PRESENT CASE. SINCE THE PENALTY NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AN D NOT BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND HENCE INVALID. THE PENALTIES LEVIED FOR ALL THE 3 YEARS MY THEREFORE BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. THE LD. REPRESENTATI VES PRESENT WERE DULY HEARD. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP FOR ADJUDICATION THE MAIN GROUNDS IN THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL NAMELY WHETHER THE PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT IS WARRANTED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ACCORDING TO US THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE A PEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 6 VS. BANK OF SCOTIA [380 ITR 550(SC)] AS REGARDS THE MATTER OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE AC T . THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAD AFFIRMED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASES OF M/S ITOCHU CORPORATION VS. CIT [268 ITR 172(DEL)] AND CIT VS. MITSUI & COMPANY LTD.[ 278 ITR 545(DEL)] WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE INCOME TA X APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI TO THE EFFECT THAT IN ORDER TO LEVY PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT IT WAS NECESSARY TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS NO CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE NO SUCH CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT CAN BE ESTAB LISHED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE MAIN DEFAULT IS WITH REGARD TO NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON THE RENTAL PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T RUST TO ARCHDIOCESE OF ERNAKULAM . LIKE THE ASSESSEE TRUST THE PAYEE IS ALSO A CHARITABLE T RUST/RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE IMPRESSION THAT PAYMENT S BEING MADE TO ANOTHER CHARITABLE/RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION NO TAX NEED S TO BE DEDUCTED FROM THE RENT PAID TO THAT INSTITUTION. THE OMISSION ACCORDING TO US IS AS A RESU LT OF A MISTAKEN IMPRESSION. MOREOVER THE AMOUNT INVOLVED WAS MARGINAL ONE @ RS.12 000/ - PER MONTH. FURTHER AT THE TIME OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT THERE WAS NO DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION HAS ALREADY BEE N REMITTED ALONG WITH INTEREST WHEN THE OMISSION WAS POINTED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THAT CASE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REMITTED THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT BUT HAD DIVERTED THE SAME FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSES WHEREAS IN THE CASE ON HAND THERE IS NO SUCH SITUATION. THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE STATEMENT S AND THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 27 TO 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF HUGE AMOUNT OF SALARY AND ALLOWANCES AND OTHER PROFESSIONAL CHARGES WHERE THERE HAS BEEN DUE COMPLIANCE OF THE TDS PROVISION. THEREFORE NON - COMPLIANCE OF TDS PROVISION ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 7 FOR SMALL RENTAL PAYMENT CAN ONLY BE STATED TO BE BONAFIDE AND OUT OF MISTAKEN IMPRESSION THAT TDS PROVISION IS NOT APPLICABLE WHEN PAYEE IS A CHARIT ABLE/RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. HENCE ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT THERE IS CONTUMACIOUS CONDUCT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE WARRANTING IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S. 271C OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID REASONING AND JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WE HOLD THAT THERE IS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON - DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND WE QUASH THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S. 271C OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 6.1 SINCE THE MAIN GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED WHICH IS TECHNICAL IN NATURE IS NOT ADJUDICATED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPT 2016 . SD / - SD/ - ( B P JAIN ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN: DATED 28 TH SEPT 2016 VM SR. PS COPY TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR 6 . GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT COCHIN ITA NO 161 TO 163/COCH/2016 8