Smt. Jaishree Prafulkumar Doshi, Surat v. The Income tax Officer, Ward-9(2),, Surat

ITA 269/AHD/2007 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 26920514 RSA 2007
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 269/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Jaishree Prafulkumar Doshi, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer, Ward-9(2),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-02-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-02-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 17-02-2010
Next Hearing Date 17-02-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 15-01-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'A' (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI AND N S SAINI) ITA NO.269/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:- 2002-03) SMT. JAISHREEBEN PRAFULKUMAR DOSHI PROP. OF M/S MILEE CHEMCIALS SUPER COMPOUND VASTA DEVDI ROAD SURAT V/S THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-9(2) SURAT [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] APPELLANT BY :- SHRI J P SHAH ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI GOVIND SINGHAL SR. DR O R D E R PER N S SAINI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) :THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) DATED 30-10-2006 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2002- 03 BY WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY I MPOSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCO ME-TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT] TO THE TUNE OF RS.1 50 192/-. 2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 11 900/- BY TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS BOGUS PURCHASES MADE AN D CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE VERIFYING THE PURCHASES MADE BY HER (THE ASSESSEE) DURING THE YEA R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRITTEN LETTERS TO TWO PARTIES I.E. M/S .VISHAL TRADING CO. (PURCHASE AMOUNT OF RS.2 22 500/-) AND M/S. S. J. C HEMICALS (THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2 8 9 400/-) AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH PARTIES EVER EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD FURTHER 2 GOT THE ENQUIRIES DONE BY DEPUTING HIS WARD INSPECT OR TO MAKE ON THE SPOT INQUIRIES BUT AFTER VISITING THE PREMISES MENTIONED IN THE DETAILS-AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HE ALSO FOUND THAT THESE PARTIES NEVER EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THUS HAVING CO ME TO KNOW THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED PARTIES NEVER EXISTED AT THE GIV EN ADDRESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES IN PERSON FOR VERIFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION OR IN CASE IF SHE FAILED TO DO THAT THEN WHY THE PURC HASES SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM THESE PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.5 11 9 00/- BE NOT TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES CLAIMED BY IT. IN RESPON SE TO THE ABOVE REFERRED LETTERS WHATEVER SUBMISSION WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND HE HAD FINALLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5 11 900/- AND INITI ATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT FOR LEVY ING PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT SHE HAS FILED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. 3 IN APPEAL THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT IS SEEN TH AT BEFORE 1 LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SEC.274 READ WITH SEC.271 (1)(C) OF TH E ACT ALONG WITH A SHOW CAUSE LETTER REQUIRING HER TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY PEN ALTY MIGHT NOT BE LEVIED AGAINST HER AND ASKED HER TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. IT I S FOUND THAT IN RESPONSE THE ABOVE REFERRED NOTICE AND SHOW CAUSE LETTER ISS UED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE APPELLANT MADE A DETAILED SUBMISSION A ND IT WAS STATED THAT THE INABILITY ON HER PART TO PHYSICALLY PRODUCE THE CON CERNED PARTIES AFTER A TIME LAG OF AROUND 2.6 YEARS FROM THE TIME OF MAKING OF THE PURCHASES FROM THEM WAS MOST BONAFIDE AND GENUINE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A BUSINESSMAN ENTERED INTO TRANSACTIONS WITH NUMEROUS PERSONS AND PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS ACTIV ITIES AND IF SUCH PARTIES CHANGED THEIR ADDRESSES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME OR MI GHT EVEN GO OUT OF THE BUSINESS ALTOGETHER AND IF THE TRANSACTIONS REMAINE D UNVERIFIABLE THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AT FAULT AND THE FA CTORS THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR HELPLESSNESS TO TRACE SUCH PARTIES MIGHT NOT BE TREATED AS A DELIBERATE ACTION ON HER PART AND THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES B EHIND SUCH HELPLESSNESS SHOULD BE APPRECIATED. IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT WHATEVER PURCHASES WERE MADE THESE WERE REFLECTED IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE THE PURCHASES S HOULD NOT BE TREATED AS 3 BOGUS AND NO PENALTY BE IMPOSED BY CONCLUDING THAT SHE HAD FILED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. BESIDES ABOVE TH E APPELLANT HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME U NDER SEC.44AF OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SAID SECTION AND HENCE THE ACTION TO IMPOSE PENALTY AGAINST HER MIGHT BE DROPPED AS SHE WAS NOWHERE AT FAULT WH ILE FILING HER TAXABLE INCOME. 7. HOWEVER IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE REFERRED SUBMISSION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THE APPELLANT HAD SQUARELY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE PUR CHASES MADE BY HER WERE GENUINE ONES BECAUSE MERELY FURNISHING PURCHASE BIL LS DID NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. FURTHER ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF MOTOR GENERAL FINANCE V/S. CIT 254 ITR 495 (DEL.) IT WAS HER LIABILITY TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF EXPENSES WERE FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND NOTHING ELSE. WHILE REBUTTING THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THAT SHE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SEC.44AF OF THE AC T AND THE ADDITION WAS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID SECTION DID NOT GRA NT ANY IMMUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FROM ANY ADVERSE POINT FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE WAS FREE TO ASSESS THE INCOME AF TER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THUS IT IS SEEN THAT ON THE BAS IS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS AND ALSO BY KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION .OF -THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HELD THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5 11 9007- WERE BOGUS ONES AND ON THAT BASIS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WHILE FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME THE APPELLANT FILED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY HE LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.1 50 192/-UNDE R SEC.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT. 8. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN SU BMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HIGH LY UNJUSTIFIABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. ACCORDING TO THE A. R. THE HON'BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SARABHAI CHEMIALS PVT. LTD. V/S. (2002). 25 7 ITR 355 (GUJ.) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE DEEMING FICTION CONTAINED IN EXPL ANATION - 1 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WILL NOT APPLY IF THE EXPLANAT ION BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE IS OTHERWISE BONAFIDE AND IF HE HAS DISCLOSED ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL RELATIN G TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ACCORDING TO THE A. R. THE HON'BLE COURT H AS FURTHER HELD THAT IN CASES WHERE EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BUT WAS REJECTE D AS IT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE THERE WOULD ARISE NO PRESUMPTION OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME THAT WAS ADDED OR DISALLOWED AND SUCH ASSESSEE CAN SHOW THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION OF FERED BY HIM WAS A BONAFIDE ONE AND THAT HE HAD DISCLOSED ALL FACTS RE LATING TO SUCH EXPLANATION AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME DURING THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. BESIDES ABOVE THE A. R. HAS ALSO RELI ED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. RA HULJEE & COMPANY (2001) 250 ITR 255 (DEL.) WHEREIN ACCORDING TO HIM THE HON'BLE COURT HAS 4 OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE TRIBUNAL HAVING RECORDED T HE FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS EXPLANA TION REGARDING BREACH OF CUSTOM RULES COMMITTED BY IT AND IT PAID THE PENALT Y AND THE FINE FOR RELEASE-OF GOODS HOWEVER SINCE THE EXPLANATION WA S BONAFIDE THE CANCELLATION OF PENALTY UNDER SEC.271(L)(C) OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED. THE A. R. HAS FURTHER PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. SHIVNARA YAN JARNNALAL & COMPANY (1998) 232 ITR 311 (MP) WHEREIN ACCORDING TO HIM IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY DELETED IN A SIMP LE CASE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS AND ASSUMPTION OF INCOME BY APPLICATION OF FL AT RATE SINCE NO FINDING OF FRAUD OR GROSS OR WILLFUL NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MADE. BESIDES ABOVE JUDICIAL DECISIONS THE A. R. HAS ALS O RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S. BHARAT BOBBINS LTD. (2000) 157 TAXATION 74 WHEREIN ACCORD ING TO HIM THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS A BLE TO FURNISH A BONAFIDE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF MATERIAL FA CT THE BURDEN CAUSED BY THE EXPLANATION WOULD BE DISCHARGED AND THE CASE WO ULD NOT BE HIT BY THE MISCHIEF OF THE EXPLANATION. THUS ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED FACTS IT HAS BEEN PLEADED BY THE A.R. THAT THE LEVY OF PE NALTY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE APPELLANT MAY BE CANCELLED. 9 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND ALSO CAREFULLY WEN T THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AS MADE BY THE A. R. AND THE JUDICIAL FINDINGS AS R ELIED UPON BY HIM. AFTER THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS FOUND T HAT BEFORE THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN A NUMBER O F OPPORTUNITIES TO THE APPELLANT TO PROVE HER CASE THAT THERE WERE NO BOGU S PURCHASES MADE BY HER DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS SEEN THA T THE APPELLANT NEITHER PRODUCED THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS NOR FILED ANY CONVINCING PROO F TO SHOW THAT SUCH PARTIES WERE GENUINE ONES AND IN VIEW OF THESE FACT S IT IS SEEN THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE VARIOUS HON'BLE COURTS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASES DO NOT APPLY ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IN HER SUBMISSION THE APPELLANT HAD SQUARELY FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER C ONTENTION THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. IT WAS THE PRIME RESPONS IBILITY OF THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS REFLECTED IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR AVOIDING THE INCIDENCE OF PENALTY AT THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT HOWEVER IT IS SEEN THAT WHATEVER SUBMISSION W AS MADE BY HER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS PENALTY PROCE EDINGS THESE WERE FOUND ONLY SUPERFICIAL IN NATURE AND DID NOT HAVE A NY CONTENT OF TRUTH IN IT. THE RELIANCE OF THE A. R. ON THE FINDINGS OF THE HO N'BLE I.T.A.T. AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SAVJIBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI V/S . I.T.O. BEARING ITA NO.400/AHD/2004 DATED 21.07.2006 IS OF NO HELP TO T HE APPELLANT'S CASE RATHER IT HAS SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS FOUND THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CASH OF RS.L 29 720/- WAS FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT A ND THE SAME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE SAID ASSESSEE AND THE S AID AMOUNT WAS FINALLY HELD AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DEP ARTMENT AND WHATEVER 5 PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPEC T TO THE SAID AMOUNT THE SAME HAS BEEN FOUND CONFIRMED BY THE HOH'BLE I.T.A. T. ' ' 10 I THEREFORE KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REFER RED FACTS OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE ABOVE REFERRED DISCUSSION ABOUT THE JU DICIAL DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE AR HOLD THAT THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY LEV IED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS JUSTIFIED IN THE EYES OF LAW AND HENCE THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4 THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSE SSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). 5 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE O THER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABL E ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTER ALIA PURCHASES OF RS.2 22 500/- FROM M/S VISHAL TRADING CO. AND RS.2 89 400/- FROM M/S S J CHEMICALS TOTALING TO RS.5 11 900/-. THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WRITTEN LETTER TO SAID PARTIES AT GIVEN ADDRESSES IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE PURCHASES AND IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SU CH PARTIES EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES. THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER THEN DEPUTED INSPECTOR TO MAKE ON THE SPOT INQUIRIES WHO REPORTED THE SAID PARTIES NEVER EXISTED AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSEE. THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAID PURCHASE S AS BOGUS AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.5 11 900/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THEREAFTER THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 1 50 192/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE WH ICH WAS CONFIRMED IN APPEAL BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE PURCHASES MADE WERE SHOWN IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PAYMENT S FOR THE 6 SAME WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. AFTER A LA PSE OF ABOUT 2.6 YEARS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CREDIT ORS AS THEY HAVE SHIFTED THEIR BUSINESS TO SOME OTHER PLACE IT CANN OT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN BOGUS PURCHASES AND IS LIABL E FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THA T EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IS FOUND T O BE FALSE THEN ONLY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. BUT WHERE AN EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SUBSTANTIATED THEN THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE FOR PENALTY. IT WAS ALSO ARGU ED THAT AS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED FOR FURNISHING O F INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THE INSTANT PENALTY LEVIED F OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME IS BAD IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES AND ALSO BEFORE US THAT PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PURC HASES UNDER QUESTION WERE MADE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL B Y CHEQUES. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DEALT W ITH THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE INQUIRY FROM THE BANK AND HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE PAYM ENTS WERE NOT MADE TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES HAVE BEEN S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OR THAT THE MONEY PAID BY CHEQUE WAS RECEI VED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES WERE NOT AVAIL ABLE AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS OR THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION CANNOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E PURCHASES ARE BOGUS WHEN PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANN EL WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE M ADE WERE ALSO KNOWN TO THE BANK. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH APPLY IN A PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT 7 FROM THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH APPLY IN AN ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. UNPROVED AND DISPROVED ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEP TS AND PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED MERELY BECAUSE SOME CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY IT. FURTHER WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF HER INCOME AND HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ONLY ON THAT COUNT. THUS THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO LEVY PENALTY FOR CON CEALMENT OF INCOME FOR WHICH NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIA TED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) IN THE INSTANT CASE WAS ALSO WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS.1 50 192/- AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. O RDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26 - 02 - 20 10 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (N S SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 26-02-2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. SMT. JAISHREEBEN PRAFULKUMAR DOSHI PROP. OF M/S MILEE CHEMCIALS SUPER COMPOUND VASTA DEVDI ROAD SURAT 2. THE ITO WARD-9(2) SURAT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-V SURAT 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD