The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot v. Sh. Vidya Sagar Saini,, Pathankot

ITA 335/ASR/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 33520914 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN ABYPG7374P
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 335/ASR/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Pathankot
Respondent Sh. Vidya Sagar Saini,, Pathankot
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 31-10-2013
Next Hearing Date 31-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 09-08-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.499(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-2010 PAN :ABYPG7374P SH.RAMAN GANDOTRA PROP. VS. DY. COMMR. OF INCOME T AX M/S. MOHAN SINGH CIRCLE-1 JAMMU. 341 SECTOR 5 CHANNI HIMAT JAMMU. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH.P.N.ARORA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL DR DATE OF HEARING: 30/10/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:31/10/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) JAMMU DATED 03.06.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREB Y LEVYING PENALTY OF RS.28 89 150/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING TH E SAME ARE BOTH AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 2 2. THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IS UNJUSTIFIED UNCALLED FOR AN UNWARRANT ED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED AS THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT A RE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THEREBY CONFIRMI NG THE PENALTY OF RS.28 89 150/- UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND A ND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. AS SUCH THE PEN ALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.85 LACS WAS DULY SHOWN IN THE RETURNED INCOME AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OR FURN ISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE RETURN WAS FI LED VOLUNTARILY THEREIN INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.85 L ACS. AS SUCH THE PENALTY ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 5. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT IF ANY AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THEN IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS ABOUT T HAT INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RELAT ION THERETO. THERE CANNOT BE ANY CONCEALMENT PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN. AS SUCH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE PENALTY ORDER MAY BE CANC ELLED. 6. ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH MAY BE URGED AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SURVEY U/S 133A CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.06.2009. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85 LACS AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SURVE Y U/S 133A FOR THE F.Y.2008-09 AND CREDITED THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HOWEVER ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.14 00 000/- TO PRANAY GANDOTRA AND RS.24 50 000/- TO PALAK GANDOTRA IN TH E MONTH OF MARCH ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 3 2009. SINCE THESE DEPOSITS WERE FOUND IN THE BANK A CCOUNTS OF THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH AND SURVEY OP ERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2009 THEREFORE THE AMOUNT S O OFFERED AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING THE SURVEY WAS TREATED AS CONCEALMEN T ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE AS THE SAME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED ONLY WHEN THE SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THIS EXTENT WERE INITIATED AT THE TIME OF FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 ON 30 .12.2011. 3. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85 00 000/- AS AN ADDITION AL INCOME FOR THE F.Y. 2008-09 AND THE SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A WAS CONDU CTED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.06.2009. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE S URVEY OPERATION. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARY DISCLO SED INCOME WHICH WAS DULY INCORPORATED IN THE RETURN FILED ON 31.03.2011 ARE NOT TENABLE AS THE ADDITIONAL VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF INCOME FOR THE F .Y.2008-09 HAD BEEN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 4 MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE SURVEY U/S 133A WHICH THOUGH REFLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED ON 31.03.2011 W HICH WAS ALSO BELATED AND FILED AFTER THE SURVEY OPERATION. FURTHER THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WHEREIN ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT FACTS ARE INVOLVED. IT IS PERTINENT TO ME NTION HERE THAT IF DEPARTMENT HAS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO DISCLOSED INCOME DISCLOSURE IS NOT VOLUNTARILY AND THIS VIEW IS UPHELD BY VARIOUS JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS IN THE CASES WHICH ARE AS UNDER: A. BHAIRAV LAL VERMA VS. UNION OF INDIA (ALL) 230 ITR 855 B. M. SAJJANRAJ NAHAR & ORS VS. CIT (MAD) 283 ITR 230 FURTHER MERE LETTER OF ASSESSEE SAYING PENALTY MA Y NOT BE LEVIED NOT AN UNDERSTANDING THAT PENALTY WILL NOT BE LEVIED AND P ENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IN SUCH CASES. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I) ANAND LIQUORS VS. CIT (KER) 232 ITR 35 II) CIT VS. D.K.B. AND CO. (KER) 243 ITR 618 III) RATHNAM & CO. VS. IAC (MAD) 124 ITR 376 THUS THIS IS A CLEAR CASE WHERE CONCEALMENT OF INC OME HAS BEEN MADE TO EVADE TAXES AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY AFTER THE SURVEY O PERATION. ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 5 3.1. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE AO W AS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME BY NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS DISCLOSED BY HIM ONLY WHEN SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE THUS CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THAT EXTENT. PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) TO THE TUNE OF RS.28 89 150/- WAS IMPOSED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. P.N.ARORA ADVOCATE ARGUED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.06.2009 ON WHICH DA TE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2009 HAS NOT EXPIRED. THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT UNDE R SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. HE ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS DECLARED AN AMOUNT OF RS.85 LACS BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN VIDE LETTER DATED 10.10.2009 SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY IS LEVIED U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SAID SURRENDER WAS MADE TO COVER DEPOSITS IN CHILDRENS ACCOUNT DATE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND TRANSACTIONS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUN TS IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS ALSO IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND TAXES DUE HAD BEEN PA ID IS ALSO NOT UNDER DISPUTE. SINCE SURVEY WAS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 6 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 AND THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN WAS PENDING THE DEPARTMENT ACCEPTED THE SUR RENDER OF RS.85 LACS DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2009 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 I.E. THE IMPUGNED YEAR. ACCORDINGLY THE DEPARTM ENT HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED AT RS.1 30 34 610/- AND INCOME ASS ESSED AT RS.1 30 81 675/-. VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12 .2011 BY MAKING VERY SMALL ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE S TRAVELING EXPENSES TELEPHONE EXPENSES USE OF CARS ETC. AS PERSONAL US E WHICH ARE ROUTINE ADDITIONS NORMALLY MADE BY THE A.O. IN FACT THE DE PARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THE SAID SURRENDER MADE BY ACCEPTING THE INCOME RET URNED AND NO ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE. 6. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNTS OF RS. 14 LACS AND RS.24.50 LACS VIDE PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE THE DEPOSITS IN THE BA NK ACCOUNTS OF THE CHILDREN OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 200 9 THE SAME WERE OFFERED AND CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS REGARD THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THESE WERE THE DEPOSITS MADE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2009 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DECLARED IN THE YEAR IN WHIC H THE SAID DEPOSITS WERE REQUIRED TO BE DECLARED AND THAT TOO BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 7 ON 10.10.2009 AND TAXES HAD BEEN PAID. THIS FACT IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SURREND ER PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. SINCE THE SURVEY WAS MADE ON 16.06. 2009 IT IS PERTINENT TO BRING TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH WHY THE INCOME TA X DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED RS.85 LACS AS SURRENDER ESPECIALLY WITH RE SPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF BANK DEPOSITS OF THE CHILDREN AMOUNTING TO RS.14 LA CS AND RS.24.50 LACS WHICH THOUGH PERTAINS TO THE YEAR ENDING 31 ST MARCH 2009 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.E. THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE PENALTY ORDER ANY I NCOME WHICH HAS BEEN CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT O N RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SU CH INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR. IT IS AN AGREED ADDITION WHICH WAS SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW AS UNDER: I) CIT VS. CAREERS EDUCATION & INFOTECH (P) LTD. R EPORTED IN (2011) 336 ITR 257 (P&H). II) CIT VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS (2011) 335 ITR 259 (DEL) III) JCIT VS. SIGNATURE 85 TTJ 117 (ITAT DELHI BE NCH) IV) DCIT VS. DR. SATISH B. GUPTA (2011) 135 TTJ 6 11 (ITAT AHD) V) CIT VS. PUNJAB TYRES (1986) 162 ITR 517 (MP) VI) CIT VS. VASANT K. HANDIGUND (2010) 327 ITR 233 VII) CIT VS. M. PACHAMUTHU (2007) 295 ITR 502 VIII) CIT VS. KIRAN & CO. (1996) 217 ITR 326 (BOM. ) ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 8 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR. P.N.ARORA ADVOCATE THEREFORE PRAYED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND D IRECT THE AO TO CANCEL THE PENALTY SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 8. THE LD. DR SH.TARSEM LAL ON THE OTHER HAND AR GUED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.06.2009 WHICH FALLS IN THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2009-10 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WHEREAS THE A SSESSEE HAS DECLARED RS.85 LACS IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND THAT TOO AFTE R THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.06.2009. NO SURRENDER WAS MADE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY BUT THE SAME WAS MADE ON 10.10.2009 WITH REGARD TO SETTLING THE MATTER ONCE FOR ALL AND TO BUY PEACE AND TO CURTAIL PROLONGED LITIGATION WI TH REGARD TO VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND AS ALSO IN THE EAR LIER YEARS AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY THOUGH IT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE LETTER TH AT THE SURRENDER WILL BE MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 PERTAINS TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE LD. DR THEREFORE ARGUED THAT LETTER IS ON OWN VOLITION OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING WAS AGREED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THEREFORE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.06.2009 ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 9 AND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 10.10.2009 AVAIL ABLE AT PB 7-8 HAS MADE A SURRENDER OF RS.85 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF P ROPERTY AND DEPOSITS IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND EARLI ER YEARS SUBJECT TO NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS LEVIED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO CURTAIL PROLONGED LITIGATION. IT IS ALS O NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND ON MAKING SURRENDER WAS STILL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN AND HAS STATED THAT TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BEFORE US. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PENALTY ORDER IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD DEPOSITS IN THE CHILDRENS BANK A CCOUNT AMOUNTING TO R.14 LACS AND RS.24.50 LACS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2009. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE SAID AMOUNTS OF RS.14 LCS AND RS.24.50 LACS WHICH IS PART OF RS.85 LACS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 PERTAI NING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 FOR WHICH DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN WAS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SURRENDER. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE ASSE SSEE COULD HAVE DECLARED OR COULD NOT HAVE DECLARED SUCH SURRENDER DURING TH E IMPUGNED YEAR. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT SURVEY HAD BEEN MADE AT S UCH A TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD BOTH OPTIONS TO DECLARE THE SURRENDER OF RS.85 LACS OR NOT.. THE A.O. CHOSE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE DECLAR ED THESE RS.14 LACS AND ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 10 RS.24.50 LACS WHICH ARE PART OF RS.85 LACS WHICH W ERE MADE AS SURRENDER AND INCLUDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ON SUCH POSSIBILITY CAN IT BE CONCLUDED THAT THERE WAS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME ESPECIALLY WHEN THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE D URING THE IMPUGNED YEAR I.E. DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 PERTAINING TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS NOT UNDER DISPUTE THEN ANSWER SHALL BE NO. IN SU CH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OR HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ESPE CIALLY WHEN THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE I MPUGNED YEAR ITSELF AND THERE IS NO INCOME BROUGHT ON RECORD TO WHICH YEAR AND TO WHICH INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAVING ACCE PTED THE RETURNED INCOME AS THE ASSESSED INCOME AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCOME BROUGHT ON RECORD AS CONCEALED INCOME OR IN THE ABSENCE OF BRI NGING ON RECORD ANY PARTICULARS WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED INACCURATE IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS AGREED TO THE SURRENDER DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENTS O F THE LD. DR DOES NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT AND CANNOT BENEFIT THE REVENUE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 11 SURRENDER IN THE PRECEDING YEAR WHERE SURVEY HAS BE EN MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ACCORDINGLY THE CASES REL IED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE ARE APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND SUPPORT OUR VIEW. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A .O. AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CANCEL THE PENALTY SO LEVIED. THUS ALL THE GROU NDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN ITA NO.499(ASR)/2013 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31ST OCTOBER. 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31ST OCTOBER 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH. RAMAN GANDOTRA JAMMU. 2. THE DCIT CIR.! JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A) JAMMU 4. THE CIT JAMMU 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.