M/s. Natco Mahashakti Mining (P) Ltd., New Delhi v. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 4319/DEL/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 431920114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AACCN4502H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 4319/DEL/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Natco Mahashakti Mining (P) Ltd., New Delhi
Respondent Addl. CIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted I
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 14-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 14-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 21-09-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.G. BANSAL ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S NATCO MAHASHAKTI MINING ADDITIO NAL COMMISSIONER OF (P) LTD. 1333-34 FLAT NO. 212 VS. INCOME -TAX CIRCLE 13(1) 2 ND FLOOR DURGA CHAMBER NEW DELHI. KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI. PAN: AACCN4502H (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PIYUSH KAUSHIK ADVOCAT E RESPONDENT BY: SH RI A.K. MONGA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 14.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.11.2011. ORDER PER K.G. BANSAL : AM IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UP FIVE GROUNDS. THESE GROUNDS CONTAIN FACTS AND ARGUMENTS ALSO. THUS THE GROUNDS ARE NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TRIBUNAL RULES. THE REAL GRI EVANCE IS PROJECTED IN GROUND NO. 1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(APPEALS) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTI FIED IN UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 11.00 LAKH U/S 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 2 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE AO NOTED TWO CREDITS IN THE NAME OF NATCO EXPORTS PVT. LTD. (NATCO FOR S HORT) OF RS. 10.00 LAKH AND AJAY GROVER OF RS. 1.00. IT WAS FOUND THAT NATCO MADE A PAYMENT OF RS. 10.00 LAKH VIDE DEMAND DRAFT NO. 542527 DATE D 08.06.2005 TO ROAMING INDIA PVT. LTD. (ROAMING FOR SHORT) ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS DD WAS NOT MADE ACCOUNT PAYEE AS THE ISSUING BANK THE UNION BANK OF INDIA INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO CROSSING O N THE DD. THE DD WAS COLLECTED BY ING VYSYA BANK. FURTHER AJAY GROV ER PAID A SUM OF RS. 1.00 LAKH IN CASH TO RANGAPPA ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED LOANS FR OM THESE PARTIES OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE DEM AND DRAFT. THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE AS TO WHY THE PENALTY U/S 271D MAY NOT BE LEVIED FOR INFRINGEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. AFTER HEARING THE AS SESSEE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE ITSELF LIABLE FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 11.00 LAKH. THEREFORE THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED. ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 3 2.1 THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A PPEALS). IT WAS MENTIONED BY HIM THAT THERE IS NO DENYING THE FA CT THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE PROVIDED BY NATCO AND AJAY GROVER BY WAY OF BEARE R DEMAND DRAFT AND CASH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AS A CONSEQUENC E OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE BECAME A DEBTOR TO THESE PERSONS. NO REASON HA S BEEN SHOWN THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAID BY WAY OF BEARER DE MAND DRAFT OR CASH. THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISION HA S BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.) VS. KUMARI A.B. SHANTI CHAMUNDI GRANITE (P) LTD. (2002 ) 255 ITR 258. IN THE CASE OF THENAMAL CHHAJJER VS. JCIT (2005) 96 ITD 210 THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT WHERE IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN IN CASH AND THE ASSESSEE IS UNABL E TO BRING ANY REASONABLE CAUSE ON RECORD AND IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE TRA NSACTIONS ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D WILL BE JUSTIFIED. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY T O PROVE MENS REA BEFORE LEVYING OF THE PENALTY. RELYING ON THESE DECISI ONS IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 3. BEFORE US IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE BY A SISTER CONCERN AND A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY TO THE THIRD PARTIES ON BEHALF ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 4 OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY JOURNAL ENTR IES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER IT CANNOT B E SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT. THUS THERE IS NO VIOL ATION OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) FOR THIS YEAR ON 05.11.2008. IN THIS ASSESSMENT A SUM OF RS. 28.50 LAKH WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME A S DEEMED DIVIDEND IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM NATCO. THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10.00 LAKH HAS ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE AND IT IS A BONA FIDE TRANSACTION THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED. 3.1 IN REPLY THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE FINDINGS OF THIS ORDER HAVE ALREADY BEEN RE PRODUCED BY US. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. IT IS SEEN THAT NATCO PAID A SUM OF RS. 10.00 LAKH BY WAY OF A BEARER DEMAND DRAFT TO ROAMING ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. FURTHER AJAY GROVER PAID A SUM OF RS. 1.00 LAKH TO RANGAP PA IN CASH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. JOURNAL ENTRIES WERE PASSED I N THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWING THESE PERSONS AS CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNTS. THE AO ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 5 CONSIDERED THE SUM OF RS. 10.00 LAKH PAID BY NA TCO AS DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). HE ALSO LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS. 11. 00 LAKH U/S 271D IN RESPECT OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT. THIS PENALTY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE CASE OF T HE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT NO MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND THEY ARE BONA FIDE. THERE IS NO D OUBT IN THESE MATTERS. THEREFORE THE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. ON T HE OTHER HAND THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT CREDITS AROSE BY WAY OF IND IRECT RECEIPTS OTHERWISE THAN BY CROSSED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DEMAND DRAFT . THE CONCERNED CREDITORS HAD PAID THE AMOUNT BY WAY OF BEARER DEMAND DRAFT AND CASH. SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 26 9SS. NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED AS TO WHY THE PAYMEN TS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY BEARER DEMAND DRAFT AN D IN CASH. THEREFORE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE U/S 271D OF THE ACT. 4.1 AT THIS STAGE WE MAY DISCUSS THE CASES RE LIED UPON BY THE RIVAL PARTIES. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GUJARAT AMBUJ A PROTEINS LTD. (2004) 3 SOT 811 (AHD.) THE QUESTION BEFORE THE BENCH WAS- WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 13 44 999/- LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT ON THE PLEA THAT TRANSACTIONS E NTERED INTO BY WAY OF BOOK ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 6 ENTRY DO NOT INVOLVE MOVEMENT OF CASH? THE TRIBU NAL AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE FUNDS FROM ONE CONCERN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT MONEY WAS LOANED OR KEPT DEPOSITED FOR A FIXED PERIOD OR REPAYABLE ON DEMAND. THE ACCOUNTS OF AMBUJA AGRO INDUSTRIE S WERE CREDITED BY JOURNAL ENTRIES ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY T HE SAID COMPANY FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY AND THERE WAS N O ACTUAL RECEIPT OF MONEY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE C ASE OF JAGVIJAY AUTO FINANCE PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT (1995) 52 ITD 504 A ND VEER SALES CORPORATION VS. ACIT (1994) 121 CTR 46 IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( APPEALS). WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED FUNDS FROM ONE CONCERN TO ITS SISTER CONCERN THUS NO LOAN OR DEPOSIT WAS TAKEN. 4.2 IN THE CASE OF NARSINGH RAM ASHOK KUMAR VS. U NION OF INDIA & OTHERS THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF SECTIONS 269SS AND 271D HAS BEEN UPHELD. HOWEVER A REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE TO T HE EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROVISIONS RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES IN THE FINAN CE ACT 1984 BY WHICH SECTION 269SS WAS INSERTED. IT WAS INTER-ALIA M ENTIONED THAT UNACCOUNTED ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 7 CASH FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS OFTEN EXP LAINED BY TAX-PAYER AS REPRESENTING LOANS OR DEPOSITS FROM VARIOUS PE RSONS. WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THIS DEVISE A NEW SECTION HAS BEEN INSERTED DEBARRING PERSONS FROM TAKING OR ACCEPTING LOANS OR DEPOSITS OTHE RWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT AFTER 30.06.1984. THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL IS THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS AR E DISCLOSED AND THEY ARE BONA FIDE THE LEVY OF PENALTY GOES AGAINST THE SPIR IT OF THE EXPLANATORY NOTES. HOWEVER IN THIS CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PR OVISION IS QUITE RATIONAL AND WHICH ACHIEVES THE OBJECTIVE OF CURBING BL ACK MONEY. THE PROVISION IS NOT DISCRIMINATORY OR ARBITRARY. THEREFORE I T IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE CONSTITUTION. THUS THE QUESTION WAS TOTALLY DI FFERENT AND THUS THE DECISION WAS RENDERED IN A DIFFERENT CONTEXT. 4.3 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUNIL KUMAR GOEL (200 9) 315 ITR 163 (P&H) IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT UNDER SECTION 273B THE ASSESSEE IS PERMITTED TO SHOW CAUSE AND TENDER EXPLANATION. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE BONA FIDE BY THE TRIBUNA L AND IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT IT WAS NOT AIMED AT AVOIDING ANY TAX LIABILITY. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS ACCEPTED. THE BONA FIDES OF THE TRANSACTION AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE. ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 8 4.4 IN THE CASE OF UDAI CHAND SANTOSH KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO 79 TTJ 88 IT WAS NOT SHOWN THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN FROM SISTER CONCERN FOR MEETING URGENT BUSINESS NECESSITY. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATI SFACTORY EXPLANATION ABOUT SOME OF THE LOANS THE APPEAL WAS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.5 THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON OTHER CASES WH ICH ARE BRIEFLY MENTIONED HERE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. STANDARD BRANDS LTD. (2006) 285 ITR 295 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE DEPOSIT RECEIVED IN CASH HAS BEEN TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF TRIBUN AL WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271D IS DELETED. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKSH MI TRUST COMPANY 2007- TIOL-50-GC-MAD-IT DATED 18.12.2006 IT HAS BEEN HE LD THAT IF TRANSACTIONS ARE BONA FIDE AND NO TAX EVASION I S INVOLVED THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT CALLED FOR UNDER SECTIONS 271D A ND 271E. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BALAJI TRADERS (2008) 303 ITR 312 (MAD.) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT DELETION OF PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED IN A CASE WHE RE- (I) CREDITORS ARE GENUINE AND TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT DOUBTED (II) THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS TO EXCHEQUER AND (III) THERE IS BUSINESS EXI GENCY FORCING THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE CASH LOAN. IN THE CASE OF OMEC ENGINEERS VS. CIT (2007) 294 ITR ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 9 599 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO FIN DING THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE AND THERE IS NO MALA FIDE THE PENA LTY COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHESHWARI NIRM AN UDYOG (2008) 302 ITR 201 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE A REASON ABLE EXPLANATION IS FURNISHED LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D IS NOT JUST IFIED. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EIDHAYAM PUBLICATION LTD. (20060 285 ITR 221 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND DIREC TOR-CUM-SHAREHOLDER WAS NOT A LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND IT WAS ONLY A CURRE NT ACCOUNT IN NATURE AND NO INTEREST WAS PAYABLE THEREFORE DELETION OF PENA LTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 4.6 IN THE CASE OF THENAMAL CHHAJJER (SUPRA) REL IED UPON BY THE REVENUE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE PROVISI ON CONTAINED IN SECTION 269SS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY WORD TO THE EFFECT THA T IT WILL NOT APPLY TO GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE ONLY SAVING CLAUSE PR OVIDED IN SECTION 273B IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN SHOW REASONABLE CAUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED ABOUT THE LOANS AND HE IS UNABLE TO BRING ANY RE ASONABLE CAUSE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS. THEREFORE THE LEVY OF PE NALTY WAS JUSTIFIED. 4.7 IN THE CASE OF AFORESAID KUM. A.B. SHANTHI (S UPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 269SS A ND 271D ARE INTRA-VIRES ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 10 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ARE MEANT TO ENSURE THA T A TAX-PAYER IS NOT ALLOWED TO GIVE A FALSE EXPLANATION FOR HIS UNACCOUNTED MONEY. IN THE CASE OF THENAMAL CHHAJJER (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT W HERE THE AMOUNTS ARE ADMITTED TO BE LOAN AND NO REASONABLE CAUSE I S ADVANCED REGARDING THE LOAN THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D WILL BE JUSTI FIED. 4.8 ON PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID CASES THE RELEV ANT CONSIDERATIONS ARE THAT THE AMOUNT TAKEN OR ACCEPTED SHOULD BE A LOAN OR A DEPOSIT. IF IT IS SO IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT A REA SONABLE CAUSE EXISTED FOR ACCEPTING THE AMOUNT AS AFORESAID. IN CASE A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IS TENDERED THE PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED; IF NOT THE PENALTY MAY BE LEVIED. THUS THE LEVY DOES NOT DEPEND UPON MER E PROOF OF DEFAULT. 4.9 COMING TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IT IS CL EAR THAT TWO PERSONS PAID CERTAIN AMOUNTS TO THIRD PARTIES AT THE INSISTENC E OF THE ASSESSEE OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUE. NATCO PAID A SUM OF RS. 10.00 LAKH ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE B Y BEARER BANK DRAFT. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E ) BY THE AO. HOWEVER IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THIS FINDING OR ANY APPEAL IS FILED OR PENDING. FURTHER AJAY GROVER PAID A SUM OF RS. 1.00 LAKH IN ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 11 CASH TO A THIRD PARTY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . CORRESPONDING JOURNAL ENTRIES WERE PASSED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSE E SHOWING THESE PERSONS AS CREDITORS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WHET HER THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH NATCO OR AJAY GROVER R EGARDING TERMS ETC. OF REPAYMENT OF THESE CREDITS. AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THESE PAYMENTS THE ASSESSEE BECAME INDEBTED TO THE TWO PERSONS. TH E TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR DEPOSITS? INSTEAD OF ASKING NATCO AND AJAY GROVER TO PAY THE AMOUNTS DIRECTLY TO CONCERNED PARTIES THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE TAKEN THESE MO NIES AND PAID TO THE THIRD PARTIES. A LOAN IS AN INDEBTEDNESS WHERE IT HAS TO BE PAID ON DEMAND. IN ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE ON ONE HAND AND NATCO OR AJAY GROVER ON THE OTHER INDEBTEDNESS IN THE FORM OF LOAN ARISES WHICH IS REPAYABLE ON DEMAND. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CARRYING OF THE TRANSACTIONS INDIRECTLY DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERE NCE BECAUSE IF IT HAD BEEN CARRIED ON DIRECTLY IT WOULD HAVE AMOUNTED TO ACCE PTANCE OF LOANS. ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT THE TWO SUMS ARE TH E LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM NATCO AND AJAY GROVER. ITA NO. 4319(DEL)/2010 12 4.10 IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAV E BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN A NY FINDING IN THE MATTER OF RECORDING OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY ANY OF THE CREDIT ORS OR THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I T CAN BE SAID THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AS FAR AS THE ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED. THEREFORE THE ARGUMENT THAT THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN LEVIED BECAUSE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN A PROPER PERSPECTIVE. ACCORDING TO US THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE SHOWN FOR NON-LEVY OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEV Y OF PENALTY. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (K.G.BA NSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP SATIA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. M/S NATCO MAHASHAKTI MINING (P) LTD. NEW DELHI. 2. ADDITIONAL CIT CIRCLE 13(1) NEW DELHI. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. THE DR ITAT NEW DELHI. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR.