K.Palani, Cuddalore v. ITO, Cuddalore

ITA 351/CHNY/2010 | 1997-1998
Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 35121714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAHPP5447R
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 351/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant K.Palani, Cuddalore
Respondent ITO, Cuddalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 09-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 09-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 09-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 09-03-2011
Assessment Year 1997-1998
Appeal Filed On 23-03-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER) .. I.T.A. NOS. 351 352 353 354 & 355/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98 TO 2001-02 DR. K. PALANI NO.54A II CROSS STREET SUBBARAYALU NAGAR CUDDALORE 607 002. PAN : AAHPP5447R (APPELLANT) V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD I(1) CUDDALORE. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. S EKARAN O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX A CT 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) FOR THE RESPECTIVE A SSESSMENT YEARS. PENALTY LEVIED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 WAS RS. 14 212/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WAS RS. 43 237/- FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 1999-2000 WAS RS. 89 489/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 0-01 WAS RS. I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 2 2 54 288/- AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WAS RS. 21 615/- RESPECTIVELY. 2. SHORT FACTS WHICH CULMINATED IN THE LEVIES OF PE NALTY ARE THAT ASSESSEE A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMEN T OF TAMIL NADU HAD FILED RETURNS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AND INCOME RETURNED WERE RS.1 36 140 RS. 95 530/- RS. 1 28 390/- RS. 97 725/- AND RS. 1 14 115/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1997-98 1998- 99 1999-2000 2000-01 AND 2001-02 RESPECTIVELY. T HERE WAS A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT CONDUCED IN TH E PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.9.2000 AND IT SEEMS DURING THE S URVEY IT WAS NOTED BY THE REVENUE THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN ONE M/S SANMAC MOTORS FINANCE LTD. AND ALSO DEPO SITS IN A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. REOPENING UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS RESORTED TO FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS1997-98 TO 1999-200 0. ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR THESE YEARS ONCE AGAIN WHEREIN T HE SAME INCOME AS RETURNED EARLIER WAS SHOWN. FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT Y EARS I.E. 2000- 01 AND 2001-02 A.O. PROCEEDED WITH REGULAR ASSESSM ENTS. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED W ITH AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH BEING DEPOSITS IN S.B. ACCOU NT WHICH WAS TAKEN I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 3 BY THE A.O. AS NOT EXPLAINED. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED CONSIDERING THE SOURCE FOR PURCHASE OF A CAR WITH RS. 3 30 000/- AND DEPOSIT IN S.B. ACCOUN T RS.1 72 266/- AS UNEXPLAINED IN ADDITION TO ACCRUED INTEREST OF RS. 35 000/- FROM M/S SANMAC MOTORS FINANCE LTD. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 9-2000 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED CONSIDERING DEPOSIT IN S.B . A/C RS. 3 33 500/- AS UNEXPLAINED. A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1 5 000/- WAS ALSO MADE ON THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 80D DB OF THE ACT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 A SUM OF RS. 7 11 050/ - WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE S.B. ACCOU NT AND A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.2 LAKHS WAS MADE FOR EDUCATIONAL EXP ENSES OF SONS WHICH THE A.O. CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED. ONCE AGAIN A DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM RS. 60 000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF T HE ACT WAS ALSO DONE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THERE WAS AN AD DITION OF RS. 24 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED PROFESSIONAL INCOM E AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24 000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSE E UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE CARRIED ALL THESE ADDIT IONS AND DISALLOWANCES IN APPEAL TO THE CIT(APPEALS) WHO IN HIS ORDER GAVE CERTAIN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 1997-98 RS. I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 4 78 000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAKH TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN S.B. ACCOUNT WAS DELETED. FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1998-99 ADDITION MADE FOR PURCHASE OF CAR TO THE TUNE OF RS . 3 30 000/- AND ACCRUED INTEREST FROM M/S SANMAC MOTORS FINANCE LTD . RS. 35 000/- WERE DELETED. A SUM OF RS. 24 990/- OUT OF UNEXPLA INED DEPOSITS OF RS. 1 72 266/- IN S.B. ACCOUNT CONSIDERED BY THE A. O. WAS ALSO DELETED. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 OUT OF THE TOTAL UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS. 3 33 500/- CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. RS. 43 000/- WAS TAKEN AS EXPLAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS ) AND RELIEF WAS GIVEN TO THAT EXTENT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 OUT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS.7 11 050/- CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 06 000/- WAS TAKEN AS EXPLAINED BY T HE CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIEF WAS GIVEN. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 NO RELIEF WHATSOEVER WAS GIVEN. TO THE EXTENT THE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) A SSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THIS TRIBUNAL VI DE ITS ORDER DATED 24 TH NOVEMBER 2004 IN I.T.A. NOS.496 TO 499/MDS/03 AND I.T.A. NOS.1443 TO 1447/MDS/04 REMITTED THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 5 2. IN THE QUANTUM APPEALS THE COMMON ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM PROFESSION AND THE OTHER COMMON ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED LOANS. WITH REGARD T O THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME FROM PROFESSION THE ASSESSING O FFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR IN THE GOVT. HOSPITAL THAT ALLOWED HIM TO CARRY ON PRIVATE PRACTICE. IT IS WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME FROM HIS PRIVATE PRACTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ASSESSED SUCH INCOME FOR THE VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEAR S. THE ADDITION OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME IS BASED ON ESTIMAT ION WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE ACCORDINGLY DELET E THE SAME. 3. IN REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS THAT WERE MADE AS UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENTS THIS BEING A CASE OF A DOCTOR WHO IS IN THE GOVT. SERVICE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED NORMALLY SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER TO BE FAIR TO BOTH THE PARTIES WE SET ASI DE THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT S AND REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. THE A.O. SHALL AFFORD SUFFICIENT OP PORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CONNECTION. 4. ONE OTHER ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF D EDUCTION U/S 80-DDB OF THE ACT. THIS CLAIM IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE MOTHER IS DEPENDENT ON THE ASSESSEE. THIS MATTER IS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO THE A.O. WHO SHOULD VERIFY THE RULE S GOVERNING THE EMPLOYMENT OF THE OFFICER. THE RULES APPARENTLY PROVIDE A LIMIT OF INCOME OF THE PERSON WHO IS CLAIMED TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE ASSESSEE. IF THE INCOME RECEIVED BY THE PERSON NAMELY MOTHER IN THE INSTANT CASE IS MORE THAN THE INCOME MENTIONED IN THE RELEVANT RULES THEN THE MOTHER IS NOT DEPENDEN T ON THE SON. THE A.O. SHALL ALLOW SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 5. SO FAR AS THE PENALTY APPEALS ARE CONCERNED THE Y ARE THE OUTCOME OF THE QUANTUM APPEALS. THE QUANTUM ASSESSM ENTS HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE IN THE EARLIER PARAS AND THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICA TION. I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 6 THEREFORE THE PRESENT PENALTIES IMPOSED CANNOT SUR VIVE AND THEY ARE HEREBY QUASHED. THE A.O. MAY CONSIDER REINIT IATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IF IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME. 3. AS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THERE W ERE PENALTIES LEVIED BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE QUANTUM APPEALS WHICH WAS ALSO REMITTED BACK TO A.O. VIDE PARA 5 OF ITS ORDER. BA SED ON THE ABOVE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL FRESH ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT S FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AN ADDITION OF RS. 22 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND A S UM OF RS. 11 250/- AS INTEREST ON MATURED DEPOSITS ALONE WERE MADE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 47 27 6/- WAS MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN S.B. ACCOUNT AND A DISA LLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF RS. 15 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 80DDB OF THE ACT WAS ALSO MADE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-20 00 AN ADDITION OF RS.2 90 500/- WAS MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT I N S.B. ACCOUNT AND AGAIN A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15 000/- WAS MADE O N THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF THE ACT. FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 1999-2000 AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 90 500/- AND AGAIN RS. 15 000/ - RESPECTIVELY WAS I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 7 MADE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ADDITION WAS MA DE FOR UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN S.B. ACCOUNT RS. 6 05 050/- AND THERE WAS FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2 LAKHS FOR EDUCATIONAL EXP ENSES OF SONS WHICH THE A.O. CONSIDERED AS NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. AGA IN A DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF RS. 60 000/- UNDER SECTION 80DDB WA S ALSO MADE. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THERE WAS AN ADDITION FOR ESTIMATED PROFESSIONAL INCOME OF RS. 24 000/- AND AGAIN A DIS ALLOWANCE OF RS. 60 000/- ON THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF THE AC T. NET RESULT OF THESE WERE THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AGAINS T THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1 36 140/- AND FINALLY ASSESSED INCOME CAME TO RS. 1 69 390/-; FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AGAINST RS . 95 530/- ORIGINALLY RETURNED INCOME THE FINALLY ASSESSED IN COME CAME TO RS. 2 57 806/-; FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE FIGU RES WERE RS. 1 28 390/- AND RS. 4 33 890/- RESPECTIVELY; FOR ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE FIGURES WERE RS. 97 725/- AND RS. 9 62 775/- RESPECTIVELY AND FINALLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-0 1 THE FIGURES WERE RS. 1 14 115/- AND RS.1 62 115/- RESPECTIVELY. IN OTHER WORDS THE ADDITIONS FINALLY SUSTAINED WERE ONLY RS. 33 25 0/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98; RS.1 62 276/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 8-99; RS. I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 8 3 05 500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000; RS. 8 65 050/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND RS. 84 000/- FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2001-02. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAIN AND PENALTIES WERE LEVIED FOR ALL THE ABOVE YEARS CONSIDERING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD INTENTIONALLY CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME A ND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE REASONS CITED BY THE A.O. WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTIES WERE AS UNDER:- (I) ASSESSEE HAD DURING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS DONE AFTER THE ASSESSMENTS WERE SET ASIDE BY THE TRIBUNAL AGREED FOR THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE EARLIER ROUND OF PROCEEDINGS BU T NEVERTHELESS HAD FILED APPEALS AGAINST SUCH ASSESSM ENTS AFTER SO AGGRIEVED. (II) THERE WERE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR C LAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF THE ACT BUT NO INC OME WAS ADMITTED BY HIM ON THESE. (III) SMT. AMMAMUTHU AMMAL MOTHER OF ASSESSEE HAD IN HE R SWORN STATEMENT DENIED ANY MONEY GIVEN BY HER OUT OF AGRICUL TURE INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE. (IV) ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED HIS BANK DEPOSITS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME NOR THE INTEREST ACCRUED THEREON. (V) ADDITIONS MADE WERE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). 4. ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS AGAINST PENALTIES LEVIED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WHO CONFIRMED THE LEVY FOR A REASON T HAT THE LEVY WAS I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 9 RIGHTLY MADE BY THE A.O. SINCE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 5. NOW BEFORE US THE LEARNED A.R. STRONGLY ASSAIL ING THE PENALTY ORDERS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD GIVEN A CLE AR FINDING WHEN THE ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE IT THAT ADDITIONS OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME BASED ON ESTIMATE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. FURTHE R THE LEARNED A.R. POINTED OUT THAT INVESTMENTS EXPLAINED BY AN ASSESS EE WHO WAS A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR WAS CONSIDERED AS ACCEPTABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN SO FAR AS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80DDB WAS CONCERNED THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SUCH A CLAIM WAS DI SALLOWED FOR A REASON THAT MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCOME MORE THAN THE LIMIT MENTIONED AND THEREFORE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDING TO HIM THE SUSTAINED ADDITIONS WERE NOT SIGNIFICAN T AMOUNTS AND IN SO FAR AS ADDITIONS FOR EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES OF THE SO NS WERE CONCERNED IT WAS PURELY ON ESTIMATION. AGAIN ACC ORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCES FOR HIS DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AND CONSIDERABLE PORTIONS WERE TAKEN AS EXPLAINED BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT JUST FOR A REASON THAT THERE WAS A DENIAL BY A SSESSEES MOTHER I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 10 EXPLANATIONS GIVEN COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A S INACCURATE OR LEADING TO ANY CONCEALMENT. 6. PER CONTRA THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. THE SUSTAINED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN PARA 3 ABOVE. IN SO FAR AS DEPOSITS IN S.B. ACCOUNT WHICH WERE CONSIDER ED AS UNEXPLAINED ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN HIS EXPLANATION BUT IT WAS ONLY FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. THERE IS NO CASE FOR THE REVENUE THAT EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT BONAFIDE. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SOURCE AND BEING A DOCTOR EMPLOY ED IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE HE WAS IN RECEIPT OF SALARY SIN CE VERY MANY YEARS. THEREFORE THERE WAS EVERY POSSIBILITY THAT DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN OUT OF SAVINGS FROM THE SAL ARY IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THOUGH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ACCEPTED IN TOTO IT MEANS THAT PART OF AMOUNTS WER E CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVE N ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EDUCATIONAL EXPENSES FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 11 2000-01 WERE MERELY ON ESTIMATION. IN SO FAR AS TH E ADDITION MADE FOR PROFESSIONAL INCOME IS CONCERNED THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY HELD THAT SUCH ESTIMATION WAS N OT JUSTIFIED. AS MENTIONED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 3 OF ITS EARLIER ORDER ASSESSEE BEING A GOVERNMENT DOCTOR AND IN RECEIPT OF SALARIE S HIS EXPLANATIONS HAD TO BE GIVEN PROPER WEIGHTAGE. THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE NOT SUBSTANTIAL. IN SO FAR AS DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 80DDB OF THE ACT WAS CONCERNED NO DOUBT TH E CLAIM MIGHT HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED FOR A REASON THAT ASSESSEES M OTHER FOR WHOM ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE CLAIM WAS NOT DEPENDENT ON TH E ASSESSEE. BUT AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT V. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC) FOR ATTRACT ING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THERE HAS TO BE CONCE ALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME B Y THE ASSESSEE. JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A LLOWED IT WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS. IF WE LOOK AT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE A.O. FOR LEVY OF P ENALTY THE FIRST ONE IS THAT ASSESSEE AFTER AGREEING FOR ADDITIONS HAD F ILED AN APPEAL. BUT ASSESSEE HAD CLEARLY MENTIONED IN HIS LETTER DATED 6.2.2006 THAT HE I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 12 WAS TIRED OF TAX PROCEEDINGS AND REQUESTED TO COMPL ETE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT SUS TAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN THE FIRST ROUND. IN OUR OPINION TH IS WAS NOT A VALID REASON TO LEVY PENALTY. IN SO FAR AS THE CERTIFICA TES ISSUED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80DDB WAS CONCERNED WHICH IS A REASON NO.(II) CITED BY THE A.O. THE FACT REMAINS THAT TH E ESTIMATION ON PROFESSIONAL INCOME WAS MADE ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 AND HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION ANY INCOME BEING AD MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS. IN SO FAR AS SWORN STATEMENT FR OM ASSESSEES MOTHER WHEREIN SHE DENIED FOR HAVING GIVEN ANY MON EY TO THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS AN AFFIDAVIT FILED BY HER AND A LSO LETTER WRITTEN BY HER EXPLAINING THE POSITION. FINALLY IN SO FAR AS REASON CITED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED BANK DEPOS ITS AND ACCRUED INTEREST ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED ONLY TO SHOW HIS INC OME IN THE RETURN AND WAS NOT UNDER ANY OBLIGATION TO SHOW HIS BALANC ES IN BANK ACCOUNT SINCE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A BUSINESS MAN AND W AS NOT REQUIRED TO FILE ANY BALANCE SHEET. IN SO FAR AS I NTEREST ACCRUAL ON DEPOSITS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 WAS CONCERNED THIS WAS ADMITTEDLY DONE ON ACCRUAL BASIS WHEREAS ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE I.T.A. NOS. 351 TO 355/MDS/10 13 BEEN UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT ACCRUAL BASIS NEE D NOT BE FOLLOWED BY HIM FOR INTEREST INCOME. THUS IN OUR OPINION AN ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE FASTENED WITH A PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) FOR FILING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FOR CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME. THIS WAS NOT A CASE FIT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. LEVY OF PENALTY FOR ALL THE YEARS STAND DELET ED. 8. IN THE RESULT ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH 2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 9 TH MARCH 2011. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-XII CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT PONDICHERRY CHARGE PONDICHERRY (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE