Addl. CIT, Gwalior v. Shri Ramendra Singh Kushwah, Gwalior

ITA 77/AGR/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 7720314 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AEBPK7522G
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 77/AGR/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant Addl. CIT, Gwalior
Respondent Shri Ramendra Singh Kushwah, Gwalior
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 29-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 24-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 24-08-2010
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 05-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.77/AGR/2009 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SHRI RAMEND RA SINGH KUSHWAHA CIRCLE-1 GWALIOR. NEW SHIVAJI NAGAR GWALIOR. (PAN : AEBPK 7522 G). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANURAG SINHA ADVOCATE ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL A.M.: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 04.11.2007 BY WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) FROM RS.26 42 452/- TO RS.33 660/ -. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS PROPRIETOR OF M/S RAMENDRA SINGH GWALIOR ENGAGED IN CONSTRUCTION OF ROADS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS. RETURN WAS FILED SHOWING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.28 16 140/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY IT WAS REVISED TO RS.38 16 140/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 31.12.2007 AT A TOTAL I NCOME OF RS.1 17 24 910/. PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED AND ULTIMATE LY PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE LEVIED 2 FOR CONCEALMENT AND ALSO FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE FALLOWING ITEMS:- A) DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) RS.73 38 8 05/- B) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS RS.4 11 615/- C) ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 RS.1 00 000/- 3. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AC CEPTED. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.73 38 805/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND ALSO ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF WORK IN PROGRESS AMOUNTING TO RS.4 11 615/-. BUT THE MINIMUM PENALTY WAS SUSTAIN ED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE OF RS.1 00 000/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER :- GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.73 38 805/- U/S. 40A(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE S AID DISALLOWANCE IS AS PER THE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH ARE NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTRARY IN SECTIONS 30 TO 38 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE NON DEDUCTION/NON PAYMENT OF TDS ON TIME WERE WELL ON RECORDS AND THE DISALLOWANCE IS BASED UPON THE SAME WHICH IS IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE CLAIM OF A WRONG OR WRONGLY CLAIMED PAYMENT IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS WELL SETTLED AND WELL ESTABLISHED THAT CONCEALMENT COULD ONLY BE BASED UPON THE SUPPRESSION OF FACTS WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE T HERE IS NOTHING ON RECORDS TO SUGGEST ANY ELEMENT OF THE SUPPRESSION OR MISREPRES ENTATION OF FACTS AS REGARDS THE APPELLANT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE CONCERNED. IN VIEW OF THIS THERE BEING NO ELEMENT OF SUPPRESSION OF FACTS I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT INVOLVED IN THE SAID ADDITION. HENCE THE PENALTY F OR CONCEALMENT WRONGLY LEVIED ON THE SAID DISALLOWANCE IS DELETED HEREBY. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2 THE PENALTY ON THE SUM OF R S.4 11 615/- BASED UPON THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS. THE ADDITION IS BASED UPON THE MEASUREMENTS STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CONTRA CTEE IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2005 UPON WHICH THE CONTRACTEE DEDUCTED THE TAX AT SOURCE IN MARCH 2005 ITSELF. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SUM IN THE RE CEIPTS PERTAINING TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HOLDING THAT THE SAME WERE REQU IRED TO BE RECORDED IN THE 3 FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS VEHEMENTLY CHALLENGED THE SAME ARGUING THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE ADDITION MADE THERE COULD BE NO ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CLOSING WORK IN PROGRESS OF ANY YEAR IS THE OPENING WORK IN PROGRESS OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE RECEIPTS OF THE SUM OF RS.4 11 615/- IN APRIL 2005 WHICH ARE DULY INCLUDED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHEN THE SAME CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLANT AND WERE RECEIVED. THE APPELLANTS FURTHER ARGUMENT WAS THA T THE PRACTICE OF NOT INCLUDING THE WORK IN PROGRESS IN THE STOCKS WAS UNIFORMLY AN D CONSTANTLY BEING APPLIED BY THE APPELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. HENCE THERE WAS N O OPENING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION EITH ER. ON THESE FACTS IT IS EVIDENT THAT DESPITE THERE BEING ADDITION IN THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST IF THE SAME PERTAINED TO THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF ANY SORT REPRESENTING THIS ADDITION. WITHOUT CO NSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF SIMILAR OPENING STOCK OF WORK IN PROGRESS FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE WORK IN PROGRESS OF TH IS YEAR FORMED PART OF RECEIPTS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR CONCEALMENT ON ACCOUNT OF W ORK IN PROGRESS MERELY BASED UPON THE MEASUREMENT BY THE CONTRACTEE AS ABOVE CAN NOT BE TAKEN TO HAVE INVOLVED THE ELEMENT OF CONCEALMENT. RELIANCE IS F URTHER PLACED ON HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GARG ENGINEERING CO. (1999) 235 ITR 451 (ALL.). THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS THEREFORE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY OF CONCEALMENT ON THE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS. THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.3 THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS BASED UPON THE ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T. A CT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.50 000/- EACH RECEIVED FROM SHRI RAVI VERMA & SHRI BALVIR SINGH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THE SAM E IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED AGAINST THE SAME VIDE THE WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON WHICH HAVE BEEN CITED ABOVE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE ARG UMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/ - IS MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. IT IS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT IN CASE OF AN ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS MADE U/S. 6 8 THERE REMAINS NOTHING FURTHER TO ESTABLISH CONCEALMENT BECAUSE THE VERY A DDITION MADE U/S.68 IS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THE CONTENTIONS AS TAKEN BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON ARE RELATED TO THE ADDITION IN QUESTION BY AND LARG E. HOWEVER THE APPEAL IN QUESTION IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE ADDI TION AND HENCE THE ISSUES RELATING TO THE GROUNDS OF ADDITION AND JUSTIFICATI ON FOR ADDITION ARE NOT SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL. THE FACT REMAINS THAT TH E ADDITION INVOLVED IS U/S.68 UPON WHICH PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT IS LEVIED WHICH IS WELL BASED AND THE SAME IS 4 THEREFORE JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LE VIED A MINIMUM PENALTY VIDE THE PENALTY ORDER WHO IS DIRECTED TO LEVY THE MINIMUM P ENALTY ON THE ADDITION OF RS.1 LAKH MADE U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDITS. 4. LD. D.R. BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN IMPOSING PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40 (A)(IA) AND ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS. HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5. THE LD. A.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS I N RESPECT OF WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT CREDITED/ PAID ON 31.03.2005 AND DEPOSITED THE SAME PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN ON 24.10.2005. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MUMB AI BENCH IN ITA NO.6268/MUM/2009 IN THE CASE OF BAPUSAHEB NANASAHEB DHUMAL VS. ACIT IN WHICH UNDER PARA NO.5 IT IS MENTIONED THAT AFTER DISMISSAL OF ITS APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) WH EREBY ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS CONFIRMED. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPLICATION BEFOR E THE CIT(A) IN VIEW OF THE RETROSPECTIVE AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 154. THE CIT( A) GAVE RELI EF TO THE ASSESSEE. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE A.O. GAVE A FINDING TH AT THE ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE/CREDITED IN RESPECT OF THOSE PARTIES IN THE MONTH OF MARCH WAS ONLY RS. 2 83 43 188/- AND REST OF THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BEFORE MARCH 2005 DURING THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. THEREFORE THE A.O. HAS ALLOWED DEDUCTION ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2 83 43 188/- AN D MAINTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE BALANCE EXPENDITURE. THE HONBLE MUMBAI BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 5 SINCE IN THE CASE IN HAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DE DUCTED THE TAX IN THE LAST MONTH OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. MARCH 2005 AND DEPOSITED THE SAME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139( 1) THEN IT IS COVERED UNDER CLAUSE A OF SECTION 40(A)(IA). THEREFORE WHEN TH E ASSESSEES CASE COVERED UNDER THE MAIN PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAW THEN WE N EED NOT TO GO TO THE ISSUE OF PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF THE AMENDMEN T IN THE PROVISIONS BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010. AS REGARDS THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR WHEN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT CONTRARY TO THE MAIN SECTION/ENACTMENT THEN THE SAID DECISION WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REV ENUES. EVEN OTHERWISE WHEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS UNDER THE MAIN PROVISION S OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) THEN THE SAID DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. MADURAI MILLS AND CO LTD (SUPRA) IS NOT RELEVANT. ACCORDINGLY W E SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND ALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE DEDUCT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SO FAR AS PAYMENT MADE BEFORE 01.03.2005 ARE CONCERNED SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAS NO APPLICATION AS THE RIGORS OF SECTION ARE APPLICABLE IN THE SITUATION WHERE THE AMOUNT IS REF LECTED IN BALANCE SHEET AS PAYABLE AND HAS NOT BEEN PAID BEFORE FILING RETURN OF INCOME U/S 13 9(1). IN THE CASE IN HANDS AS ADMITTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE AMOUNT STOOD PAID MONTHLY OF COURSE WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX WHICH ALSO CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO DISALLOWANCE. 7. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION STOOD APPROVED BY THE D ECISION OF HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED V S. DCIT 123 TTJ (JP.) 888 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER :- THERE IS ALSO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIES ONLY WHEN THE AMOUNT IS P AYABLE. SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE WHERE EXPENDITURE IS PAID. IT IS AP PLICABLE ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE PAYMENTS ARE DUE AND OUTSTANDING. THE WORD PAYABLE IS NOT DEFINED THROUGH THE WORD PAID IS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 43(2) TO MEAN AC TUALLY PAID OR INCURRED. HENCE BY IMPLICATION THE WORD PAYABLE DOES NOT INC LUDE PAID. THE DIFFERENCE IN 6 THE WORD PAID AND PAYABLE IS ALSO THERE IN THE RULE S FOR DEPOSITING THE TDS AND ALSO FOR LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B WHERE INTEREST IS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF TAX ACTUALLY DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE. SECTION 40(A)(IA) OTHERWISE BEING A LEGAL FICTION N EEDS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. THE CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO.5 OF 2005 HAS ALSO CLARIFI ED THAT THE PROVISION OF THE SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS TO AUGMENT COMPLIANCE OF TDS P ROVISION IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTS AND CURB BOGUS PAYMENTS TO THEM. IN PRES ENT CASE THE PAYMENT IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND ON THE ISSUE WHETHER TAX IS TO BE DEDUC TED AT SOURCE ON SUCH PAYMENT IS NOT FREE FROM DOUBT. IN ANY CASE SINCE ASSESSEE HAS MADE ACTUAL PAYMENT OF THE WHEELING/SLDC CHARGES AS PER THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD PROVISION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. CIT VS. MOTHER INDIA REFRIGERATION INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. (1985) 48 CTR (SC) 176: (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC ) APPLIED 8. ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE TAXMANNS PUBLICA TION DIRECT TAXES LAW AND PRACTICE WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED AS UNDER :- WHETHER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE IN RESPEC T OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY PAID WITHOUT TDS-TAX IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER SECTION 193 194A 194C 194H 194-I AND 194J EITHER AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OR AT THE TIME OF GIVING CREDIT TO THE RECIPIENT. HOWEVER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF TDS DEFAULTS IF AMOUNT IS PAYABLE . IF AMOUNT IS ACTUALLY PAID TAX IS NOT DEDUCTED UNDER THE ABOVE SECTION SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE. SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAS TO BE SUBJECTED TO STRICT INTERPRETATION. GOING BY THE R ULE OF STRICT INTERPRETATION THE DEFAULT WITH REFERENCE TO ACTUAL PAYMENT: OF EXPE NDITURE WOULD NOT ENTAIL DISALLOWANCE. 9. ALTERNATIVELY IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE PRO VISIONS WAS NEW. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LATEST PROVISIONS. THEREFORE IT CANN OT BE A GROUND FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 10. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION BEING NEWL Y BROUGHT ON THE STATUTE BOOK WAS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT LEAST SUCH DIS ALLOWANCE MAY BE A GROUND FOR DISALLOWANCE 7 BUT CERTAINLY CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR LEVY OF PENALT Y AS THE CONSIDERATION ARISING IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE DIFFERENT FROM THE SIDE ON WHICH AN ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED. IN THE CASE OF BANARAS TEXTORIUM VS. CIT (1988) 169 ITR 782 (ALL.) THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN PARA 16 OF ITS JUDGEMENT HAS HELD THAT IT IS SETTLE D LAW THAT THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE CERTAINLY RELEVANT AND HAVE PROBATI VE VALUE BUT SUCH FINDINGS ARE NOT MATERIAL ALONE AND MAY NOT JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IN A GIVEN CASE BECAUSE THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARISES IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT FR OM THOSE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT THE FINAL WORD IN P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS UPON THE PLEAS WHICH CAN BE TAKEN AT THE PENALTY STAGE AND HOWSOEVER RELEVA NT AND GOOD THE FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAY BE THEY ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE SO FAR AS TO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED. AGAIN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE HONBLE ALLAHABA D HIGH COURT IN THE CASE REPORTED IN CIT VS. GARG ENGINEERING CO. REPORTED IN (1999) 235 ITR 451 (ALL.) HAS HELD THAT STANDARD OF PROOF FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT ON WHI CH AN ADDITION OF AN INCOME ON THE QUANTUM SIDE WOULD BE SUSTAINED. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES DI SALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 43B AND 40A(3) HAVE BEEN HELD NOT LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) : (A) CIT VS. M.S.K. CONSTRUCTIONS (P) LTD (2008) 296 ITR 18 (MAD.) (B) SURREL ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (2010) 37 SOT 117 (AHD.) (C) GHISA RAM TARA CHAND VS. ITO (1998) 60 TTJ (DE L) 30 11. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENDITURE IPSO-FACTO WILL NOT LEAD TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 8 (A) CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LIMITED (20 10) 322 ITR 158 (SC) (B) CIT VS. PHI SEEDS INDIA LIMITED (2007) 208 CTR 320 (DEL.) (C) CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINE INDIA LIMITED (2007) 1 58 TAXMAN 348 (DEL.) (D) CIT VS. SMT. BIMLA DEVI SHARMA (1991) 192 ITR 482 (PATNA) 12. IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ADDITION WHICH RELATES TO THE WORK IN PROGRESS AMOUNTING TO RS.4 11 615/- NOT SHOWN IN THE ACCOUNT IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCOUNTING FOR THE RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF THE PAYMENTS AND TDS CERTI FICATES RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES. ADMITTEDLY THIS WORK IN PROGRESS WAS PAID ON 28.04 .2005 AND 09.05.2005 FALLING WITHIN THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THESE AMOU NTS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 WHEN IT WAS CREDITED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACC OUNT. THIS ADDITION REPRESENTS MERELY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR IM POSITION OF PENALTY. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GARG ENGINEERING COMPANY 235 ITR 451 (ALLD.) IN WHICH I T WAS HELD THAT WHERE THERE COULD BE TWO POSSIBLE VIEWS MERELY BECAUSE AUTHORITIES HAS ACCE PTED ONE VIEW IN PREFERENCE TO THE OTHER IT DOES NOT MAKE OUT A CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUT HORITIES BELOW. WE NOTED IN THE INSTANT CASE THE A.O. HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) ON THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING @ 100% ON THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON THE FOLLOWING INCOME:- A) DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF RS. 73 38 805/- B) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS.4 11 615/- C) ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF RS.50 000/- EACH ON LOAN FROM SHRI RAVI VERMA & SHRI BALVIR SINGH. 9 WHILE LEVYING THE PENALTY THE A.O. OBSERVED AS UND ER :- IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION I AM SATISFIED THAT A SSESSEE HAS CONCEALED INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME IN RESPECT OF ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNTS OF RS.73 38 805 + 4 11 615 + 1 00 000 AND IS LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 14. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DISAL LOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS BUT SU STAINED THE PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE REDUCT ION OF PENALTY. THE REVENUE HAS COME IN APPEAL BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL IN RESPECT OF SUSTENANCE OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) FOR THE ADDITION OF RS.1 00 000/- . THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE LAID DOWN AS UNDER :- 271.(1) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSION ER (APPEALS) [OR THE COMMISSIONER] IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDE R THIS ACT IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON - (A) .. (B) .. (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME OR (D) .. HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY - EXPLANATION 1- WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERI AL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT - (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OF FERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) OR THE COMMISSIONER TO BE FALSE OR (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND [FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THA T ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAV E BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM] 10 THEN THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULAR S HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 15. FROM THE PERUSAL OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IT IS NE CESSARY THAT THE SATISFACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. OR THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF SU CH INCOME. THE PENALTY UNDER THIS SECTION CAN BE LEVIED ON TWO CHARGES I.E. FOR CONCEALMENT OF PA RTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON THE CHARGE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEN PENALTY C ANNOT BE LEVIED FOR CHARGE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND VISE VERSA. T HIS WAS SO HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. LAKHDIR LALJI 85 ITR 77 (GUJ.). IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE MUST BE CL EAR FINDING ABOUT THE CHARGE OF THE PENALTY. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE A.O. OR THE OFFICER IMPOSING TH E PENALTY TO STATE WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCO ME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH A FINDING AN OR DER PASSED BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WILL BE VO ID. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING CASE BY THE HIGH COURTS :- 1) CIT VS. MANU ENGINEERING WORKS 122 ITR 306 (GUJ ) 2) NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. VS. CIT 282 ITR 64 2 (GUJ) 3) PADMA RAM BHARALI VS. CIT 110 ITR 54 (GAUHATI) 11 16. IN THIS CASE WE NOTED FROM THE PENALTY ORDER P LACED BEFORE US THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT OUT ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENAL TY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). HE HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THIS FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE FINDING OF THE A.O. GIVEN IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. THE WORD CONCEAL AS PER WEBSTER DICTIONARY MEANS TO HIDE WITH DRAW OR REMOVE FROM OBSERVATION COVER OR KEEP AWAY FROM SIGHT TO KEEP SECRET TO A VOID DISCLOSING OR DIVULGING. THAT MEANS NON- DISCLOSURE OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ON THE OTHER H AND WHERE THE PARTICULARS ARE DISCLOSED BUT SUCH DISCLOSURE IS NOT CORRECT AND TRUE OR ACCURATE IT WOULD AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FOR EXAMPLE IN A CASE OF A BUSINESSMAN EVEN THE PARTICULAR TRANSACTION OF SALE IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO C ONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHILE THE SALE IS SHOWN BUT ADDED A LESSER VALUE IT WOULD AM OUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THRUST OF LEV Y IS UPON THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH ARE EITHER CONCEALED OR FURNISHED INACCURATELY BY THE A SSESSEE. THE EXPRESSION PARTICULARS REFERS TO THE FACTS DETAILS SPECIFIC OR THE INFORMATION ABO UT SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. THUS THE DETAILS OR INFORMATION ABOUT THE INCOME WOULD DEAL WITH FACTUA L DETAILS OF THE INCOME AND CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO AREAS WHICH ARE SUBJECTIVE SUCH AS ST ATUS OF TAXABILITY OF AN INCOME ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION AND INTERPRETATION OF LAW. THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISION OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) HAS LAID DOWN THAT AS PER LAW LEXICON THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS IS DETAIL OR DETA ILS (IN PLURAL SENSE) THE DETAILS OF A CLAIM OR SUPPORTING ITEMS OF AN ACCOUNT. THUS IT WAS HELD THAT THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. IN THE CASE OF THE 12 ASSESSEE IT IS A FACT THAT NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE. EVEN NO STATEMENT MADE OR DETAILS SUPP LIED WERE FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT HENCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT APPARENTLY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THIS CASE CAN ALSO NOT BE REGARDED TO BE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS SO FAR THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM. MERELY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW DOES NOT MEAN T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF INCOME. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD . (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT T HERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SEC ONDLY THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. TH E MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 2711C WOULD EMBRACE T HE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND T O BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISION THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISH ING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEN D UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS A RE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY THE DET AILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE NOT EXACT OR CORRECT NOT ACCORDIN G TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FA LSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). A ME RE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE 13 PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTI CULARS. 17. WE MAY POINT OUT AT THIS STAGE THAT THE EXAPLAN ATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLICABLE ONLY FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT CANNOT BE APPLIED WHERE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME. WHERE THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME T HE ONUS IS ON THE A.O. TO ESTABLISH EITHER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME UNDER THE MAIN PROVISIONS OR THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN UND ER SECTION 271(1)(C). EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) STATES THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWE D IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME IN RESPEC T OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. THIS DEEMING PROVISION IS NOT ABSOLUTE ONE BUT IS R EBUT TABLE ONE. IT ONLY SHIFTS THE ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE. EXPLANATION 1 REFERS TO THE TWO SITUATIO NS IN WHICH PRESUMPTION OF THE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IS DEEMED. THE FIRST SIT UATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACT MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOM E FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE AO OR THE COMMIS SIONER TO BE FALSE. THE SECOND SITUATION IS WHERE THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AND ALSO FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION WAS BONAFIDE ONE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM. THE PRESUMPTION AVAILA BLE UNDER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 271(1) CANNOT BE DRAWN UNLESS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FAL LS UNDER EITHER OF THE CLAUSES (A) OR (B). THIS EXPLANATION THEREFORE DOES NOT AND CANNOT APPLY T O THE CASE WHERE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY REJECTION OF LEGAL CLAIM MADE BY THE A .O. BONAFIDE OF LEGAL CLAIM IS NOT THE 14 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE EXAPLANATION-1. THEREFORE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF LEGAL CLAIM WOULD NOT INVITE PENALTY. THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY WHERE THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSES SEE IS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IF WE LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) A ND EXPLANATION-1 FROM A DIFFERENT ANGLE THE A.O. IS BOUND TO BRING ON RECORD SPECIFIC CHARGE AG AINST THE ASSESSEE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME INITIAL ONUS WILL GET SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT HE HAS NOT CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME DUE TO THE APPLICABILITY OF EXPLANATION I. WHILE IN THE CASE OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THE ONUS REMAINS ON THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. IF THE A.O. FAILED TO BRING OUT OR LEVY SPECIFIC CHARGE ON THE ASSESSEE THE PE NALTY IMPOSED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. OUR AFORESAID VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGINEERING CO. LTD. 282 ITR 642 IN W HICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER :- IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO STAT E WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS BEING LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BE EN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- ------------------------ HELD THAT THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHOWED THAT NO CLEAR CUT FINDING HAD BEEN REACHED. THE TRI BUNAL HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS LEGAL. ISSUE. THE RATIO IN CIT V. MANU ENGINE ERING WORKS 122 ITR 306(GUJ) WAS APPLICABLE AND THE ORDER OF PENALTY COULD NOT B E UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER WAS INVALID. 18. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY US IN THE FOLLOW ING JUDGEMENTS :- 15 ITO VS. SMT. LALITA IN ITA NO.433/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 KM. RUCHI RATHORE VS. ITO IN ITA NO.97/AGR/2007 FOR A.Y. 1998-99 SMT. RAJ RANI MITTAL VS. ITO IN ITA NO.2275/DEL/200 9 OF ITAT DELHI BENCH A ACIT VS. DR. S.D. MAURYA IN ITA NO.619/AGR/2008 FO R A.Y. 2003-04 19. EVEN ON THIS BASIS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RE IS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE. 20. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH VARIOUS DECISIONS REL IED ON BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US. WE NOTED THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF BAPUSAHEB NANASAHEB DHUMAL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.62 68/MUM/2009 AND JAIPUR BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMI TED VS. DCIT 123 TTJ (JP.) 888 HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT APPLICABLE W HERE THE EXPENDITURE IS PAID. IT IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE PAYMENTS ARE DUE AND OUTSTA NDING. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE DEDUCTED THE WHOLE OF THE TDS ON 31.03.2005 AND DEP OSITED THE SAME BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN. THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THESE DECISIONS THERE CAN BE A VIEW THAT DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THESE DECISIONS PROV E THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE ONE. SIMILARLY WE NOTED IN RESPECT OF WORK IN PRO GRESS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCOUNTING THE RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE REFORE HE HAS ACCOUNTED FOR WORKING IN PROGRESS DURING THE A.Y. 2006-07 ON THE BASIS OF TH E TDS CERTIFICATES. THIS IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE REGARDED TO BE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS ACCOUNTING METHOD FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN TH E EARLIER YEARS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND DECISIONS RELIED ON WHICH WE PERUSED WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE 16 ITA NO.77/AGR/2009 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REDUCING THE PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C). WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 21. IN THE RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.10.2010) SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 29 TH OCTOBER 2010. PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA BENCH AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA TRUE COPY