Sh. Tej Pal Singh, Muzaffarnagar v. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 293/DEL/2014 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 29320114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AOVPS9903H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 293/DEL/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Tej Pal Singh, Muzaffarnagar
Respondent ACIT, Muzaffarnagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 14-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 10-10-2016
Next Hearing Date 10-10-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 16-01-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : D : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4628/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ACIT CIRCLE-2 MUZAFFARNAGAR. VS. TEJ PAL SINGH MAZRA ROAD SHAMLI MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN: AOVPS9903H CO NO.402/DEL/2011 (ITA NO.4628/DEL/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ITA NO.293/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 TEJ PAL SINGH C/O PREM PRAKASH ADVOCATE 183/2 NORTH CIVIL LINES MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN: AOVPS9903H VS. ACIT CIRCLE-2 MUZAFFARNAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 2 ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI UMESH CHANDER DUBEY SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL AM: THIS BATCH OF THREE APPEALS COMPRISES OF ONE APPEA L BY THE REVENUE AND ONE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND ANOTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ( HEREINAFTER ALSO CALLED `THE ACT). 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APP EAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1 82 34 261/- MADE BY TH E AO BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.43 44 810/- ON THE SALE O F 83 PLOTS MEASURING 6095 SQ. YARDS AFTER TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 @ 200/- ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 3 PER SQ. YARD. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD TOTAL LAND OF 10198.01 SQ. MTRS. AND THE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE S OF SECTION 50C WAS SHOWN AT RS.2 21 23 000/- GIVING THE AVERAGE RATE AT RS.2169 PER SQ. MTR. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF SALE DEED D ATED 27.04.2007 OF 130 SQ. MTRS. LAND IN WHICH CIRCLE RATE WAS TAKEN AT RS .2 000/- PER SQ. MTR. IN THE SAID SALE DEED THE PROPERTY WAS SHOWN TO BE LO CATED AT CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH COLONY KASABA SHAMLI. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED NOT TO HAVE DEVELOPED ANY COLONY CALLED CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH COLONY. THE INCOME-TAX INSPECTOR WAS DEPUTED TO INVESTIGATE THE FACTS WHO REPORTED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS KNOWN AS CH ARAN SINGH VIHAR AND NOT CHARAN SINGH COLONY. THE MAIN ENTRY OF TH E COLONY WAS FROM MAJRA ROAD. THE ITI FURTHER REPORTED THAT THE MARK ET VALUE OF THE PLOTS SITUATED IN THE COLONY RANGED BETWEEN RS.8 500/- TO RS.9 000/- PER SQ. MTR. A LIST OF PREVAILING CIRCLE RATES FIXED BY TH E ADM (FINANCE) ON DIFFERENT DATES WAS ALSO OBTAINED WHICH REVEALED TH E CIRCLE RATE FROM 2.7.2006 TO 17.09.2007 IN THE ABOVE LOCATION AT RS. 5 700/- PER SQ. METRE WHILE FROM 18.09.2007 TO 31.08.2008 AT RS.6 000/- PER SQ. METRE. THE ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 4 AO RELYING UPON THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE IN COME-TAX INSPECTOR AND SUCH CIRCLE RATES FIXED BY ADM (FINANCE) DETER MINED THE SALE CONSIDERATION UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AS UNDE R:- PLOTS SOLD FROM 01.04.2007 TO 17.09.2007 6001 .08 SQ. METRE. PLOTS SOLD FROM 18.09.2007 TO 31.03.2008 - 4196 .93 SQ. METRE. 4. THAT IS HOW TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE P ROPERTY WAS COMPUTED AT RS.5 93 87 736/-. THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS THUS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS WORKED OUT ABOVE RS.2 9 6 93 868/- LESS: INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 67 16 690/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.2 29 77 178/- LESS : LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE RS. 47 42 917/- DIFFERENCE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.1 82 34 261 /- 5. THIS LED TO THE MAKING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 82 34 261/-. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AGAINST WHICH THE REVE NUE HAS COME UP IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 5 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE DES PITE NOTICE. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. WE ARE THEREFORE PROCEEDING TO DI SPOSE OF THIS APPEAL ON MERITS BY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE ADDITION OF RS.1 82 34 261/- WAS MADE BY T HE AO BY TAKING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS PER SECTION 50C @ RS.5 70 0/- PER SQ. METRE (FOR 6001.08 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND) AND RS.6 000/- PER SQ. METRE (FOR 4196.93 SQ. MTRS. OF LAND). THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED CERTAI N ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF COP IES OF CIRCLE RATES LEASE AGREEMENT ETC. UNDER RULE 46A. THE AOS REMAND RE PORT WAS ALSO CALLED FOR IN WHICH THE AO REITERATED HIS STAND. T HE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ADJACENT TO CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH COL ONY AND THAT IS WHY THE CIRCLE RATE AS APPLICABLE TO CHOUDHARY CHAR AN SINGH COLONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. T HIS APPEARS TO BE IN ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 6 CONTRAST TO WHAT THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE DID NOT DEVELOP ANY COLONY BY THE NAME OF CHOUDHARY CHARAN SINGH COLONY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ON THAT BASIS CAME TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES VERSION WAS CORRECT. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN CONFLICTING AREAS IN THE VIEW CAN VASSED BY THE AO VIS- -VIS THE LD. CIT(A). THE FIRST AND THE FOREMOST THING WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SETTLED IS THE LOCALITY IN WHICH THE PLOTS WE RE ACTUALLY SOLD AND THE CIRCLE RATES OF SUCH PLOTS. THE AO HAS PROCEEDED IN TAKING CIRCLE RATE OF CERTAIN PLOTS AT RS.5 700/- PER SQ. METRE WHILE FOR OTHERS RS.6 000/- PER SQ. METRE. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCE PTED THE ASSESSEES STAND. IN OUR OPINION THERE CANNOT BE ANY DIFFICU LTY IN ASCERTAINING THE CIRCLE RATES OF THE PLOTS SOLD WHICH CAN BE TRACED FROM THE STAMP VALUE FOR THE RESPECTIVE SALE DEEDS. SINCE BOTH THE AUTH ORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT COM E CLEAN IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS SCORE IS SET ASIDE AND THE M ATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT HIM TO FIND OUT THE PRECISE ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 7 CIRCLE RATE OF ALL THE PLOTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THE RESPECTIVE SALE DEEDS AND THEN COMPUTE CAPITAL GAIN AS PER LAW AFTER ALLOWING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. 8. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.29 18 500/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY IN NOIDA. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A COMMERCIAL SPACE SITUATED AT CENTRE STAGE MALL NOI DA ON 19.7.2007 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 08 12 000/-. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN SUCH COMMERCIAL SPACE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MAINLY FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND LOAN TAKEN FROM ICICI BANK. THE AO NOTICED THAT UP TO 19.7.2007 BEING THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE THE ASSESSEE SOLD PLOTS HAVING VALUE OF RS.57 87 000/- IN WHICH THE ASSESS EES HALF SHARE WAS RS.28 93 500/-. BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK A LOAN OF RS.50 LAC FROM ICICI BANK AND A FURTHER LOAN OF RS.3 LAC FROM SHRI TARA SINGH AND RS.2 LAC FROM SHRI SAMAR SINGH. THE AO RECORDED THE STAT EMENT OF SHRI TARA SINGH WHO ADMITTED TO HAVE GIVEN A LOAN OF RS.3 LAC TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 8 THE AO OPINED THAT THERE WERE NO GENUINE REASONS FO R THE TRANSACTION. HE THEREFORE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SHRI TARA SINGH. AS REGARDS THE OTHER LOAN OF RS.2 LAC THE AO WITHOUT DISCUSSING ANYTHING IN THE ORDER TREATED IT AS A N ON-GENUINE TRANSACTION. HE THEREFORE TOOK TOTAL AVAILABLE FUNDS AT RS.78 93 500/- (RS.28 93 500/- AS ASSESSEES SHARE FROM SALE CONSI DERATION OF PLOTS AND RS.50 LAC AS LOAN FROM ICICI BANK). THE DIFFERENTI AL AMOUNT OF RS.34 18 500/- WAS ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. IN APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSAC TION OF RS.3 LAC FROM SHRI TARA SINGH. HE ALSO ACCEPTED THE GENUINE NESS OF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS.29 18 500/- ON THE BASIS OF CASH FLOW STATEMENT REPRODUCED ON PAGE 17 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER WHICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO. HE HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN OF RS.2 LAC. BOTH THE SIDES ARE IN APPEAL ON THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS. 9. IN SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.29 1 8 500/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY IN NOIDA IS CONCERNED WE FI ND THAT THE AO HAS TAKEN THE ASSESSEES SHARE FROM THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF PLOTS AT ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 9 RS.28 93 500/-. AS AGAINST THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- CASH FLOW A.Y. 2008-09 (FY 2007-08) TO CASH DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK SHAMLI RS.1 09 00 000 BY OLD BALANCE RS.23 00 000 TO CASH DEPOSITED IN ICICI BANK NOIDA RS.45 000/- BY AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SALE OF LAND RS.1 02 01 000/- TO HOUSEHOLD EXP. RS.1 00 000 BY AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME RS.1 25 300/- TO STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION EXP. RS.8 12 000/- BY WITHDRAWAL FROM DISTT. COOP. BANK RS.1 85 000/- TO CASH IN HAND RS.10 54 300/- RS.1 29 11 300/- RS.1 29 11 300/- 10. AS PER THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.1 02 01 000/- FROM SALE OF LAN D. THE AO DID NOT ADVERSELY COMMENT ON THIS RECEIPT OF RS.1.02 CRORE. WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE AOS STAND IN TAKING THE ASSESSEES SHAR E FROM SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS AT RS.28.93 LAC BY CONSIDER ING THE CUT-OFF DATE OF 19.7.2007 FOR THE PLOT SOLD. IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED A PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF T HE PLOTS BEFORE THE ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 10 EXECUTION OF SALE DEEDS TAKING PLACE AFTER THE CUT- OFF DATE. GOING BY THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS AS PER THE FUNDS FLOW STATEME NT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE A SSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY PROVED THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSES O F MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL SPACE. THE ADDITION OF RS.29 18 500/ - IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED. 11. THE THIRD GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGA INST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.3 LAC MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE A CT. THIS IS IN RESPECT OF A LOAN OF RS.3 LAC CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI TARA SINGH WHOSE GENUINENESS WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT STATEMEN T OF SHRI TARA SINGH WAS RECORDED WHO ADMITTED TO HAVE GAVE INTEREST FRE E LOAN OF RS.3 LAC TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE STATEMENT ON TRIVIAL ISSUES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN ACCEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF RS.3 LAC BEING T HE AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI TARA SINGH ON THE BASIS OF TOTAL ITY OF FACTS PREVAILING ON THIS SCORE. ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 11 12. FIRST GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION U/S 68 TO THE EXTENT OF RS .2 LAC. THE ASSESSEE STATED BEFORE THE AO THAT A SUM OF RS.2 LAC WAS REC EIVED BY HIM FROM SMT. VIRNA RANI SINGH. HOWEVER SUBSEQUENTLY DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS STATED THAT THE NAME OF THE CREDITOR WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS SMT. VIRNA RANI SINGH W HEREAS THE CORRECT NAME WAS SHRI SAMAR SINGH. DURING THE COURSE OF FI RST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LOAN WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN FROM SHRI VIR NARAIN SINGH WHO IS FATHER-IN- LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT FROM SHRI SAMAR SINGH HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 13. ON GOING THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT THE LOAN OF RS.2 LAC WAS RECEIVED BY MEANS OF A BANK DRAFT WHICH WAS ISSUED FROM THE JOINT ACC OUNT OF SHRI VIR NARAIN SINGH (FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE) AND SH RI SAMAR SINGH (BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE). SHRI VIR NARAIN SINGH OWNED 100K BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. AT THE TIME OF PURCH ASE OF DRAFT FROM THE ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 12 JOINT ACCOUNT OF FATHER AND SON THERE WAS A BALANC E OF RS.2 22 124/- AND MOST OF THE BALANCE WAS FROM EARLIER TRANSACTIONS. WHEN THERE IS A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT THERE CAN BE NO REASON TO DOUBT THE R ECEIPT OF LOAN FROM THE EITHER PARTY WHO ARE OTHERWISE CLOSE RELATIVES INTER SE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN A LOAN OF RS.2 LAC WAS GIVEN FROM A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT OPERATED BY SHRI VIR NARAIN SINGH AND SHRI SAMAR SI NGH THE AUTHORITIES OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION ON THE QUESTION OF THE PAYER OF THE LOAN. EXCEPT THIS NO OTHER REASON HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO DISPROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TH E ENTIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THIS ADDITION. THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 14. THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE TWO ADDITIONS NAMELY UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2 LAC A ND ADDITION U/S 24(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.14 443/-. THE PENALTY TOTALING TO RS.73 000/- CAME TO ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 13 BE UPHELD IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGR IEVED AGAINST THE SUSTENANCE OF PENALTY. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR A ND THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION U/S 2 4(A) IS IN RESPECT OF RENTAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM RELIANCE INFOCOM LTD. AGAINST WHICH STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) AT THE RATE OF 30% WAS CLAIMED. IT IS ALTOGETHER A DIFFERENT MATTER THAT THE ASSESSEE GAV E UP HIS CLAIM AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEDUCTION. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURSUE THIS ISSUE FURTHER CANNOT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION BE A REASON TO IMPOSE AND CONFIRM PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). WHEN THE ASSESSEE GENUINELY RECEIVED RENTAL FROM RELIANC E INFOCOM LTD. AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT THEREON THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE OR WAS NOT ALLOWED CO ULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF THI S AMOUNT. ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 14 16. AS REGARDS THE OTHER CONSTITUENT OF PENALTY NAMELY ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.2 LAC WE FIND THAT T HE SAME HAS BEEN DELETED BY US HEREINBEFORE IN THE ORDER PASSED IN Q UANTUM PROCEEDINGS. WHEN THE VERY BASE OF THE PENALTY BEING THE ADDITI ON ITSELF DOES NOT STAND THERE CAN BE NO QUESTION OF CONFIRMING ANY P ENALTY THEREON. WE THEREFORE OVERTURN THE PENALTY ORDER AND ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF PENALTY. 17. IN THE RESULT THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE REVENU E IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES THE C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT IT IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IS ALLOWED AND PENAL TY APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.10.201 6. SD/- SD/- [SUCHITRA KAMBLE] [R.S. SYAL] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 14 TH OCTOBER 2016. DK ITA NOS4628/D/2011 & 293/D/2014 CO NO.402/DEL/2011 15 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AR ITAT NEW DELHI.