LB Publishers & Distributors (Delhi) Pvt Ltd., New Delhi v. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4298/DEL/2000 | 1996-1997
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 429820114 RSA 2000
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4298/DEL/2000
Duration Of Justice 10 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant LB Publishers & Distributors (Delhi) Pvt Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent JCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-10-2010
Assessment Year 1996-1997
Appeal Filed On 01-11-2000
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH B DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI R. P. TOLANI JM & SHRI K. D. R ANJAN AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 199697. L. B. PUBLISHERS & DISTRIBUTORS [DELHI] P. LTD. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX M 55 IIND FLOOR MAIN MARKET VS. SPECIAL RANGE : 1 GREATER KAILASH II N E W D E L H I. N E W D E L H I 1101 048. P A N / G I R NO. L 8. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M. P. RASTOGI ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI MANISH GUPTA SR. D. R .; O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 96-97 ARISES OUT OF ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-V NEW DELHI. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I. T. ACT. THE GROUND OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)V NEW DELHI HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF RS.5 00 000/- UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . 3. IN THIS CASE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WA S ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER 2007 IN ITA. NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000. W HILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IT WAS HELD THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS R ECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SUCH SATISFACTION COULD NOT BE INFERRED IF THERE WAS NO FINDING TO THE EFFECT IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL WAS ALLO WED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF NON-RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THE REVE NUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FOR CONSIDERATION OF THEIR LORDSHIPS WAS AS UNDER:- WHETHER THE ITAT WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN QUASHIN G THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT INITIATED AND IMPOSED BY THE L D. CIT (APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE CONSIDERING THE A BOVE SUSTENTIAL QUESTION OF LAW HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD ENHANCED TH E INCOME BY DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.16 75 806/- AND ISSUED NOTICE AFTER RECORDING HE R SATISFACTION. SINCE ITAT HAD LOST SIGHT OF THIS FACT THE CASE HAS BEEN REMANDED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ITAT FOR DECISION ON MERITS. 6. AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COUR T THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IT IS NECESSARY TO BR ING ON RECORD THE FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO LEVY PENALTY BY LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS.16 75 806/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONFERENCE EXPENSES. O UT OF RS.16 75 806/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 76 263/- WAS INCURRED ON AIR-TICKETS AND BALAN CE ON MEETINGS OF MANAGERS AND DELEGATES IN VARIOUS HOTELS AND CLUBS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REL YING ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 TREATED THE EXPENDITURE AS ENTERTAINME NT EXPENSES AND DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 86 814/- UNDER SECTION 37(2) OF THE ACT. 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . 7. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO PARTICIPATION IN THESE CONFERENCES BY EITHER THE PRINCIPALS OF THE COMPANI ES OR THE NOMINEES OF PUBLISHERS WHOSE BOOKS THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING. EXCEPT FOR ONE MAN AGER INDICATED FOR EACH CONFERENCE THE PARTICIPATION WAS ENTIRELY BY LADIES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT THE AGENDA FOR CONFERENCE INCLUDED BREAK-FAST AT 8.00 AM; SIGHTSEE ING / SHOPPING TOUR UNDER WATER WALK FOR LUCKY ONES AT 9.00 AM; LUNCH AT 1.30 PM SHOPPING C ONTINUES UNTIL THE PARTICIPANTS WERE OUT OF MONEY AT 2.30 PM; PRIVATE BEACH PARTY AT 8.00 P ; A ND DISCOTHEQUE / CASINO (11 00 PM). THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ALSO FOUND THAT THE AGENDA WAS SIMILA R FOR ALL OTHER DAYS AND VENUES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD THEREFORE OBSERVED THAT THE EXPEN DITURE WAS ACTUALLY INCURRED ON PLEASURE TRIPS OF CERTAIN PERSONS. HOWEVER IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAD TREATED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF HIRING OF HALLS PURCHASING OF SALES MATERIAL FO R PROMOTION OF INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE OF VIEWS BETWEEN DIFFERENT OFFICERS FOR IMPARTING TRA INING TO SALES PERSONNEL AND FOR PLANNING STRATEGY. FROM THE AGENDA FOR THE CONFERENCE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MISREPRESENTED THE FACTS AND DETAILS O F EXPENSES TO CLAIM AN EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS OTHERWISE INADMISSIBLE. ACCORDINGLY SHE ENHANCED TH E INCOME BY DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.16 75 806/- AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UN DER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ADDIT ION OF RS.9 25 978/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.16 75 806/- VIDE ORDER IN ITA. NO. 2 724 (DEL) OF 2000. DATED 8 TH JUNE 2007. THE TRIBUNAL WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 25 9 78/-HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 6. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND LOOK ING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE FIND THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.9 25 978/- DEBITED FOR THE SO-CA LLED NATIONAL CONFERENCE AT MAURITIUS WAS PURELY FOR THE ENJOYMENT OF SOME PERSONS AND TH E ITINERARY OF THE PROGRAMME CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT IT WAS AN PLEASURE TRIP OF SOME PERSO NS. NOTHING CONCRETE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD WHICH PROVES THAT THE ALLEGED NATIONAL CON FERENCE WAS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES. NOTHING CONCREATE HAS BEEN PUT FORWARD T HAT SOMETHING RELATED TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS TRANSACTED IN THE SO-CALLED NATIONAL C ONFERENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCRETE EVIDENCE THE ENJOYMENT TRIP OF SOME PERSONS COULD N OT BE CALLED IN NATIONAL CONFERENCE 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMP LY GIVING NOMENCLATURE WILL NOT PROVE THAT THE EXPENSES ARE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE WE A RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES O F THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THE ACT. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ENGAGED THE SERVICES OF BOOK ADVISORS AS PER SCHEM E LAUNCHED BY IT. THE ASSESSEE ORGANIZED CONFERENCE OF BOOK ADVISORS. THE GIFTS IN CASH AND KIND WERE GIVEN FOR MOTIVATION AND ENCOURAGING THE BOOK ADVISORS TO ACHIEVE HIGH TARGE TS. THIS RESULTED IN INCREASE IN THE SALES AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD INCREASED ITS SALES CONSID ERABLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR BY ADOPTING THESE TECHNIQUES. AS THE EXPENDITURE ON CONFERENCE HAD B EEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THE SAME WAS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. S IMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIER YEARS AND WAS ALSO ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IT WAS ONLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 AND 1996-97 THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS TREATED AS ENTERTA INMENT EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED THE EXPENDITURE TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDE R BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THESE WERE ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. THE WORD CONCEAL MEANS TO HIDE OR KEEP SECRET. THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SIGNIFY ANY GUILTY INTENTION IN CLAIMING THE EXPENS ES WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE YEARS. THE EXPENSES HAVE BEE N VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WERE HELD TO B E ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAD AT NO POINT OF TIME ESTABLISHED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE OF THE NATURE OF FRAUD OR BOOKED WITH A MALAFIDE INTENTION TO REDUCE THE INCO ME. THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT OF CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AS THERE HAD BEEN NO ATTEMPT TO HIDE ANY EXPENDITURE OR PORTION THEREOF FROM THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNLESS THERE W AS WILLFUL NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) REJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVI NG THAT THE ITINERARY OF CONFERENCE AND THE PARTICIPATION ENTIRELY BY LADIES CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ORGANIZED PLEASURE TRIPS UNCONNECTED WITH BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE W AS NO PARTICIPATION IN THESE CONFERENCES BY EITHER THE PRINCIPALS OF THE COMPANIES OR THE NOMIN EES OF PUBLISHERS WHOSE BOOKS THE ASSESSEE WAS SELLING. EXCEPT FOR ONE MANAGER INDICATED FOR EACH CONFERENCE THE PARTICIPATION WAS ENTIRELY BY LADIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF HIRING 5 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . OF HALLS PURCHASING OF SALES MATERIAL FOR PROMOTIO N OF INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE OF VIEWS BETWEEN DIFFERENT OFFICERS FOR IMPARTING TRAINING TO SALES PERSONNEL AND FOR PLANNING STRATEGY WAS THEREFORE INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAD MISRE PRESENTED THE FACTS AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES TO CLAIM AN EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS OTHERWISE INADMISSIB LE. SHE THEREFORE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER NOTED THAT IT WAS NOT A MERE CASE OF DISBELIEVING T HE ASSESSEE BUT REALLY A CASE WHERE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE F ALSE. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS TO ARRIVE AT A FINDING OF CONSCI OUS CONCEALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND DELIBERATE AVOIDANCE OF ASSESSABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD M ISREPRESENTED FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPETITION OF ITS TOTAL INCOME AND OFFERED THE EXP LANATION WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS COVERED UNDER EX PLANATION (1) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION MADE WILL DEEM TO REPRESENT THE IN COME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. SHE ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.5 00 000/-. 10. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFERENCE WAS ORGANIZED TO MOTIVATE THE BOOK ADVISORS. SUCH MOTIVATION HAS HE LPED THE ASSESSEE IN INCREASING THE SALES MANIFOLD. SIMILAR EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED IN EARLIE R YEARS AND WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT CONFERENCE EXPENDITURE WAS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION. THERE BEING NO MALFIDE ON T HE PART OF THE ASSESSEE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED. ON THE OTHER HAND TH E LD. SR. DR SUBMITTED THAT ITAT DELHI BENCH B IN QUANTUM APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION IN ITA. NO. 2724 (DEL) OF 2000 DATED 8 TH JUNE 2007 HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.9 25 9 78/- ON ACCOUNT OF NATIONAL CONFERENCE HELD AT MAURITIUS. THIS EXPENDITURE WAS HELD TO BE PURELY FOR ENJOYMENT OF SOME PERSONS AND THE ITINERARY CLEARLY SUGGESTED THAT IT WAS A PLEASURE TRIP OF SOME PERSONS. THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY IN RESPECT OF RS .9 25 978/- HAS TO BE UPHELD. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A PPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF QUANTUM APPEAL NOTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.16 75 806/- WAS NEITHER CONFERENCE EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR ENTERTAINMENT EXPENDITU RE AS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE 6 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE EXPENSES WERE COMPLETELY UNR ELATED TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS OF SALE OF BOOKS. IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE C OMPANY DID NOT HAVE ANY SALE IN MAURITIUS AUSTRALIA AND CAIRO WHERE THE CONFERENCES WERE HELD . IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE PARTICIPANTS WERE TAKEN TO VARIOUS TOURIST RESORTS AND WERE MADE TO ABIDE BY AN HOUR TO HOUR SCHEDULE IN THE COMPANY IMPOSED UPON THEM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE EXP ENSES DEBITED TO THE HEAD CONFERENCE EXPENSES WERE COMPLETELY UN-RELATED TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE SAME COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCENTIVES. THEREFORE THE EXPENDI TURE WAS DISALLOWABLE. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED ON PLEASURE TRIPS IN THE GUISE OF CONFERENCE EXPENSES THOUGH AS PER DETAILS THE EXPEN DITURE WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED FOR HIRING OF HALLS PURCHASE OF SALES MATERIAL FOR PRO MOTION OF INTERACTION AND EXCHANGE OF VIEWS BETWEEN DIFFERENT OFFICERS FOR IMPARTING TRAINING TO SALES PERSONNEL AND FOR PLAN OF STRATEGY. THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A FALSE CLAIM IN RESPE CT OF CONFERENCE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS 9 25 978/-. EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE CIT (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE OR SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATI ON IS BONAFIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL I NCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL I NCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 27 1(1) BE DEEM TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. IN THE I NSTANT CASE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED IN RELATION TO EXPENDITURE OF RS 9 25 978/- HAS BEEN FOUND TO B E FALSE BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPLANATION TO BE BONAFIDE BUT IN FACT IT IS A FALSE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON PLEASURE T RIP CAMOUFLAGED AS CONFERENCE EXPENSES. THEREFORE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION (1) WOULD COME INTO OPERA TION AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.9 25 978/- ADDED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) AND UPHELD BY THE ITAT SHA LL BE DEEM TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTI ON 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . 12. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P). LTD. 230 CTR 320 (SC) HAS HELD THAT A GLANCE AT THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD SUGGEST THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED UNDER THESE PRO VISIONS THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY T HE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. AS PER LAW LEXICAN THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULAR IS A DETAIL OR DETAILS IN PLURAL SENSE; THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM OR A SEPARATE ITEM OF AN ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE MEANING OF THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. THE WORDS ARE PLAIN AND SIMPLE. IN OR DER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO THE PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE READING OF WORDS INACCURATE AND PARTICULARS IN CONJUNCTION THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN WHICH ARE NOT ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. UNLESS THERE IS A FINDING THAT DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUS TAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE WILLFULLY CAMOUFLAGED THE EXPENSES INC URRED ON PLEASURE TRIPS AS CONFERENCE EXPENSES WITH INTENTION TO CLAIM DEDUCTION. THEREFO RE IT IS NOT A CASE OF BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSEE S CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (SUPRA). THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) IS EXIGIBLE IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF RS.9 25 978/- UPHELD BY THE ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO LEVY MINIMUM PENALTY OF 100 PER CENT IN RESPECT OF TAX S OUGHT TO BE EVADED ON INCOME OF RS.9 25 978/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED A CCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON : 31 ST JANUARY 2011. SD/- SD/-. [ R. P. TOLANI ] [ K. D. RA NJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 8 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4298 (DEL) OF 2000 . DATED : 31 ST JANUARY 2011. *MEHTA * COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT.