DCIT, CHENNAI v. Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 3294/CHNY/2016 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 329421714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AADCD7458H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 3294/CHNY/2016
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Dr. Ganesan's Hitech Diagnostics Centre P Ltd., CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Department
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 10-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 10-07-2017
First Hearing Date 10-07-2017
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 05-12-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI . . . . BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.3294/MDS/2016 1761/MDS/2017 & 1762/MDS/2 017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHENNAI 34. VS M/S. DR.GANESANS HITECH DIAGNOSTICS CENTRE P LTD. NO.1 MILLERS ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 600 010. PAN: AADCD7458H ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SMT. S. VIJAYAPRABHA JCIT / RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. DEEPA CA /DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY AM: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1 CHENNAI DATED 30.09.2016 IN ITA NO.402 /CIT(A)- 1/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 PASSED U /S.250(6) R.W.S. 271D & 271E OF THE ACT. 2.1 THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL ON 05.12.2016 W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CI T(A) DATED 2 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 30.09.2016 MENTIONED SUPRA WHEREIN THE LD.CIT(A) H AD CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD.ACIT LEVYING P ENALTY U/S.271D AND U/S.271E OF THE ACT FOR RS.10 LAKHS AN D RS.3 15 000/- RESPECTIVELY. THEREAFTER WHEN THE AP PEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 10.07.2017 THE BENCH DIRECTED THE REVENUE TO FILE TWO SEPARATE APPEALS WITH RESPE CT TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271D & 271E OF THE ACT AND FURTHER DIR ECTED THE REGISTRY TO ISSUE DEFECT MEMO. COMPLYING WITH THE D IRECTIONS OF THE BENCH THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL IN ITA NOS. 176 1 & 1762 ON 17.07.2017 WITH A DELAY OF 224 DAYS. THE REVENUE AL SO FILED A PETITION DATED 17.07.2017 SEEKING CONDONATION FOR T HE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS WHICH WAS ONLY TO CURE THE DEFEC T POINTED OUT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL FILED EARLIER WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. AFTER EXAMINING THE ABOVE MENTIONED FAC TS THE BENCH DECIDED TO CONDONE THE DELAY BECAUSE IT IS ONLY A T ECHNICAL BREACH WHICH WAS CURED BY THE REVENUE WHEN POINTED OUT ON THE EARLIER OCCASION AND THEREAFTER WE HEREBY PROCEED T O HEAR THE APPEALS ON MERIT. 2.2 SINCE WE HAVE ADMITTED THE APPEAL IN 1761 OF 20 17 & 1762 OF 2017 CONDONING THE DELAY APPEAL IN ITA NO.3294 OF 2016 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 3. (I) ITA NO. 1761 OF 2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3: THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE ELABORATE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271D OF TH E ACT FOR RS.10 00 000/- WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED LOAN BY WAY OF CASH FROM ITS DIRECTOR DR. S.P. GANESAN. 3. (II) ITA NO. 1762 OF 2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3: THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE ELABORATE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271E OF TH E ACT FOR RS.3 15 000/- WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION TO SECTION 269T OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD REPAID LOAN BY WAY OF CASH TO ITS DIRECTOR DR. S.P. GANESAN. 4.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING QUALITY LABORATORY SERVICES LIKE BASIC BIOCHEMISTRY HEMATOLOGY CLINIC PATHOLOGY ETC. FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME F OR THE ASSESSMENT 4 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 YEAR 2012-13 ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.09.2012 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.18 84 10 000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT ON 06.01.2015. DURING THE COU RSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IT WAS OBSERVED FROM THE TAX AUDIT REPO RT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD REPAID CERTAIN LOAN AMOUNT REC EIVED FROM ITS DIRECTOR DR.S.P.GANESAN BY WAY OF CASH WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 269T OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER ON EXAMINING TH E DETAILS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS FOLLOWING FACTS WAS REVEALED :- 1) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD OBTAINED LOAN OF RS.10 00 000/- FROM ITS DIRECTOR DR. S.P. GANESAN B Y WAY OF CASH ON 12.03.2012. 2) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALSO REPAID LOAN RECEIV ED FROM DR.S.P. GANESAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3 15 000/- BY WAY OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS.20 000/- AND EXCEEDING RS.20 000 /- DURING THE PERIOD 01.01.2012 TO 31.03.2012. 4.2 ON QUERY THE LD.AR EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD.ACI T THAT THOSE TRANSACTIONS WERE ONLY CURRENT ACCOUNT TRANSA CTIONS AND NOT LOAN OR DEPOSIT AS STIPULATED U/S.269SS / 269T OF T HE ACT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PENALTY. THE LD.AR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE IDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD REPORTED IN 285 ITR 221 AN D PLEADED FOR 5 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 DROPPING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LD.ACIT REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD.AR BY STATING THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE LD.AR WAS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND THE CORRECT FACT IS THAT THOSE TRA NSACTIONS WERE CASH LOANS RECEIVED AND REPAID WHICH IS IN CONTRAVE NTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS & 269T OF THE ACT. HOWE VER THE LD.ACIT RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE CASE GRIHALA KSHMI VISION V. ADDL. CIT REPORTED IN 63 TAXMAN.COM 196 (KERALA) WH EREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL TO INFER THE R ECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FROM THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM/SISTER CONCE RNS WERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN LOANS OR DEPOSITS THEN PENALTY SHALL BE ATTRACTED U/S.269SS & 269T OF THE ACT. THE LD.ACIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR AND THE ASSESSEE COM PANY TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT L OAN AS THAT OF THE CASE GRIHALAKSHMI VISION SUPRA. THE LD.ACIT ALSO CA ME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS ANY URGENCY COMPULSION OR ANY OTHER IMPO RTANT CIRCUMSTANCES TO ACCEPT AND TO REPAY THE LOAN BY WA Y OF CASH WHEN THERE WERE ENOUGH BANKING CHANNELS AVAILABLE W ITHIN THE CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE LD.ACI T FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSE E ALSO DID NOT 6 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 WARRANT CASH TRANSACTION AND THERE WAS NO COMPELLIN G FINANCIAL DIFFICULTY FOR RECEIVING/REPAYING BY WAY OF CASH. R ELIANCE WAS PLACED IN THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE CHARAN DASS ASHOK KUMAR VS. CIT REPORTED IN 52 TAXMAN.COM 424 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) THE DECISION IN THE CASE NANDHI DHALL MIL LS VS. CIT REPORTED IN 61 TAXMAN.COM 97 (MADRAS) AND THE DECIS ION OF THE CASE AJAY GOEL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 126 ITD 89 (DEL HI). FURTHER THE LD.ACIT PLACED RELIANCE IN THE DECISION OF THE CASE SAMORA HOTELS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 19 TAXMAN.COM 285 (DEL HI) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE WORDS IN THE ACT ANY OTHER PER SON DOES NOT EXCLUDE DIRECTORS OR MEMBERS OF COMPANY WHICH HAD R ECEIVED / ACCEPTED LOANS OR DEPOSITS. FINALLY THE LD.ACIT CAM E TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED C ASH LOAN OF RS.10 00 000/- FROM DR.S.P.GANESAN AND REPAID CERTA IN AMOUNT OF LOAN BY WAY OF CASH DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSME NT YEAR CONTRAVENING THE PROVISIONS OF 269SS & 269T OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. ACCORDINGLY THE LD.ACIT LEVIED PENALT Y INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D & 271E OF THE ACT. 5. ON APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LE VIED BY THE LD.ACIT INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D & 271E OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 7 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 9. THE PROVISIONS OF S.269S5 PROHIBITS ACCEPTANCE FROM ANY PERSON BEING A DEPOSITOR ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OTHER THAN BY A ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OF A SUM MORE THAN RS.20 000 S UBJECT TO PROVISO EXCLUDING DEPOSIT OR ACCEPTANCE BY PERSONS HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SIMILARLY 269 T PROHIBITS REPA YMENT OF LOANS OR DEPOSITS SUBJECT TO CERTAIN SPECIFIED INSTITUTIO NS AND CONDITIONS THEREIN. IT IS PLAIN THEREFORE THAT TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS OR 269T THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS MUST SATISFY THE PRIME CONDITION OF EITHER BEING A LOAN OR DEPOSIT IRRESPECTIVE OF T HE CATEGORIZATION MADE THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF DR.GANESAN IS ON A CURRENT ACCOUNT DR.GANESAN BEIN G A SHAREHOLDER AS MUCH AS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. THEREFORE ROUTINE TRANSACTION IN CURRENT A/C DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO BEING A LOAN OR A DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.269SS / 269T. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON WHERE IN THE CAP ACITY OF BEING THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KEEPING IN VIEW THE EXIGENCY CERTAIN MONIES COULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OR RETURNED BY THE APPELLA NT. TO THAT EXTENT THE RATIO IN THE RELIED UPON CASE IN 285 ITR 221 WOULD APPLY. FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE IMPORT OF THE LEGISLATION N O PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIABLE AS THE EXPLANATION TENDERED NEITHER FALSE ETC IN TERMS OF RATIO IN ADIT V. A B SHANTHI 255 ITR 258 (SC). FINA LLY PENALTY U/S 271E ALSO MANDATES APPLICATION OF MIND AND READING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 8.273B WITH REGA RD TO THE EXISTENCE OF 'REASONABLE CAUSE' ATTENDANT TO THE TR ANSACTION. AS REGARDS THE APPLICABILITY OF THE RATIO RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN GRIHALAKSHMI VISION V. ADDL.CIT[2015] 63 TAXRNANN.C OM 196E (KERALA) IT IS SEEN THAT IN THAT CASE THE AMOUNTS W ERE RECEIVED FROM PARTNERS AND OTHER SISTER CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WERE REPAID AND THERE WAS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO INFER THAT THESE RECEIPTS WERE ANYTHING OTHER THAN LOANS OR DEPOSITS WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THEREFORE THE FACTS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. KEE PING THE SUM TOTALITY OF FACTS IN PERSPECTIVE I AM OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D AND 271 E CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED ON THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THE CASE WHERE PRIMARILY THE TRANSACTI ONS NOT BEING LOAN OR DEPOSITS ARE THROUGH CURRENT A/C AND BETWEE N THE APPELLANT AND ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DE LETE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271E & 271E. 8 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 6. BEFORE US THE LD.DR ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORD ER OF THE LD.ACIT BY REITERATING THE DISCUSSIONS STATED THERE IN WHILE AS THE LD.AR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND PRAY ED FOR CONFIRMING HIS ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON EXAMINING THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE:- (I) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS CLOSELY HELD BY DR.S.P. GANESAN. (II) DR.S.P.GANESAN IS THE DIRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY STEERING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO BRING IN REVENUE. (III) IN FACT DR.S.P.GANESAN DEPLOYING HIS FUNDS IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING QUALITY LABORATORY SERVIC ES LIKE BASIC BIOCHEMISTRY HEMATOLOGY CLINIC PATHOLOGY ET C. KEEPING THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE PLATFORM. (IV) THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS THE EXTENDED ARM OF DR.S.P.GANESAN. (V) UNDER THE COMPANIES (ACCEPTANCE OF DEPOSITS) RU LES 1975 AND THE RULE 2(B)(IX) DEPOSITS DOES NOT INCLUDE AN Y AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE DIRECTOR OR SHAREHOLDER OF A PRIV ATE LIMITED COMPANY. 9 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 IN SUCH IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. UDHAYAM PUBLICATIONS LTD REPORTED IN 285 ITR 221 HAD CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE TRANSAC TIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DIRECTOR-CUM-SHAREHOLDER IS NO T A LOAN OR DEPOSIT WHEN NO INTEREST IS CHARGED ON SUCH LOAN AN D IT ONLY PARTAKES THE CHARACTER OF CURRENT ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ALSO VOUCHED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS DIRECTOR DR.S.P.GANESAN DOES NOT TA NTAMOUNT TO BEING A LOAN OR DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF 269SS / 269T OF THE ACT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDIC TIONAL HIGH COURT SUPRA. THE LD.CIT(A) HAD ALSO OBSERVED IN HIS ORDE R THAT IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF A COMPANY TO EXTEND FUND TO THE COMPANY KEEPING IN VIEW OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DISTINGUISHED THE CASES RELIED BY THE LD.ACIT IN HI S ORDER AND FOUND IT TO BE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE COMPANY. MOREOVER IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 269SS & 269T OF THE ACT WERE INTRODUCED IN ORDER TO DISCOURAGE UNACCOUNTED INCOME BROUGHT INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS IN THE FORM OF LOANS AND DEPOSITS BY PRODUCING CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS FROM VARIOUS UNRELATED PARTIES. IT WAS FURTHER AIME D TO AVERT PROLIFERATION OF BLACK MONEY WHICH IS A SERIOUS THR EAT TO THE 10 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 NATIONAL ECONOMY. HOWEVER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY IT IS NOTHING BUT APPLICATION OF THE DIREC TORS RESOURCES IN HIS BUSINESS WHICH IS RUN ON THE PLATFORM VIZ. TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY WHICH IS CLOSELY HELD BY HIM. THERE IS AL SO NO ALLEGATION BY THE REVENUE THAT DR.S.P.GANESAN HAS B ROUGHT IN HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY INTO THE COMPANY WHICH IS EASILY VERIFIABLE FROM THE RETURNS FILED BY DR.S.P.GANESAN BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS THE LD.CIT (A) FURTHER RELYING IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE M/S.CHAMUNDI GRANITES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT & OTHERS R EPORTED IN 258 ITR 259 HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS & 269T OF THE ACT WILL NOT BE APPLICA BLE AND THEREBY PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 271D & 271E OF THE ACT. THE GIST OF THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IS EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW FOR RE FERENCE:- THE OBJECT OF INTRODUCING SECTION 269SS IS TO ENSU RE THAT A TAXPAYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE FALSE EXPLANATION F OR HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY OR IF HE MAKES SOME FALSE ENTRIE S HE SHALL NOT ESCAPE BY GIVING FALSE EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. D URING SEARCH AND SEIZURES UNACCOUNTED MONEY IS UNEARTHED AND TH E TAX-PAYER WOULD USUALLY GIVE THE EXPLANATION THAT HE HAD BORR OWED OR RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM HIS RELATIVES OR FRIENDS AND IT IS EASY FOR THE SO-CALLED LENDER ALSO TO MANIPULATE HIS RECORDS TO SUIT THE PLEA OF THE TAXPAYER. THE MAIN OBJECT OF SECTION 269SS WAS TO CURB THIS MENACE OF MAKING FALSE ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND LATER GIVING AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SAME. 11 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 THE UNDUE HARDSHIP OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 27 1D WHICH REPLACED SECTION 276DD PROVIDING FOR A PENALTY IS SUBSTANTIALLY MITIGATED BY THE INCLUSION OF SECTION 273B PROVIDIN G THAT IF THERE WAS A GENUINE AND BONAFIDE TRANSACTION AND TAXPAYER COULD NOT GET A LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY ACCOUNT-PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT FOR SOME BONA FIDE REASON THE AUTHORITY VESTED WITH TH E POWER TO IMPOSE PENALTY HAS A DISCRETIONARY POWER NOT TO LEV Y THE PENALTY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HE HAD ARRIVED A T AN APPROPRIATE DECISION ON THIS ISSUE BY DELETING THE PENALTY. THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND IT NECESSARY TO INTERFERE IN HIS ORDER. HENCE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS HEREBY CONFIRM ED. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RAISED IN BOTH THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1761 & 1762 OF 2017 ARE DISMISSED AND IN ITA NO.3294 OF 20 16 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /CHENNAI %& /DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2017 12 ITA NO.3294/MDS/2016 & ITA NO.1761 & 1762/MDS/2017 RSR &' ()*) /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. - ( )/CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. )./ 0 /DR 6. /12 /GF