Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sh. Kuldeep Singh, Ludhiana vs Ito, W-Vi(4), Ludhiana on 30 November, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ "ए" , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH 'A' , CHANDIGARH ीमती दवा संह, या!यक सद"य एवं, एवं ीमती अ नपणा$ ू ग&ता ु , लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SMT.DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Kuldeep Singh बनाम The Income Tax Officer, C/o Belgium Glass House VI(4), Ludhiana.
थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ADJPS6912R
अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent
नधा रती क ओर से/Assessee by : None
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR
सनवाई
ु क तार#ख/Date of Hearing : 06.09.2018
उदघोषणा क तार#ख/Date of Pronouncement: 30.11.2018 आदे श/Order PER ANNA PURNA GUPTA, A. M. :
The present ap peal has been fi l ed by the as sessee agai nst the order of the Commi ssi oner of I ncome Ta x ( Appeal s) -3, Ludhi ana (in short CI T( A) dated 27.7.2017 passed u/s 250( 6) of the I ncome Ta x Act, 1961 ( i n short referred to as 'Act') , confi rmi ng the l ev y of penalt y u/s 271( 1) ( c) of the Act.
2. The grounds r ai sed by the assessee read as under :
l. That the order of the AO is bad in the eyes of law as well as against the facts of the case.
2. That the penalty has wrongly been imposed on the assesse.
3.That the order is bad to the extend that the documents as provided under Rule 46 where simply brushed aside by announcing that the same were not provided during the hearing before the AO as well as during the quantum proceedings before the CIT(A) . Both the authorities ignore the fact that the assesse was under medical supervision and was going kidney treatment and was under regular dialysis , therefore had to visit hospital for his 2 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 treatment twice a week /every week. The fact was also brought during the hearing before the CIT( A).
4.That the assesse craves to amend , alter , delete or supplement any grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard and disposed off.
3. None appeared on behal f of th e assessee. On goi ng through the grounds rai sed before us as reproduced above we fi nd that i n ground No.3 the assessee has chal l enged the order passed by the CI T( A) conf i rmi ng the l ev y of penal t y, wi thout admi tti ng the addi ti on al evi dences fi l ed by the assessee and i gn ori ng the pl ea of the assessee th at he had reasonabl e cause for not fi l i ng the same before the revenue authori ti es i n quantum proceedi ngs bei ng under medical supervi si on undergoi ng the treatment for ki dne y ai lment.
4. On perusi ng th e order of the Assessi ng Offi cer in quantum proceedi ngs we noted that the same was passed e x parte u/s 144 of the Act. I t was noted from the order that the noti ce u/s 143( 2) was i ssued to the assessee on 30.8.2010 and served by affi xture on 27.9.2010. Several noti ces thereafter were i ssued u/s 142( 1) of the Act whi ch remai ned unresponded and, there fore, si nce the as sessee di d not cooperate in the assessment proceedi ngs the A.O. proceeded to fra me e x-parte asse ssment maki ng a ddi ti on of cash deposi ted in bank to the e xtent of Rs.30,01,000/- and i nvestment in propert y to the e xtent of Rs.1 0,60,000/- treati ng the same as i ncome of the assessee si nce the sources for both remai ned une xpl ai ned.. Th e matter was c a r r i e d i n a pp e al b e f o r e t h e CI T( A ) w he r e al s o , w e f i nd , n o n e a p p e a r e d a n d t h e c a s e w a s d e c i d e d e x - pa r t e a g a i n, u p h o l d i n g t h e ord e r o f t he A . O.
5. Th e r e a f t e r n o t i ce s f o r i n i ti a t i n g p e n a l t y p ro c e ed i n gs w e r e i s s u e d b y th e A O w h i c h r e ma i n e d u n r e s p on de d . When final o p p o rt u n i t y was given to the assessee to file his response, the as s e s s e e filed his submissions in writing s t a t i n g t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n m a de i n q u a n t u m p r o c e ed i n g s d i d n o t t a n ta m o u n t t o a d m i ss i o n a s h e h a d f a l l e n si c k d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f p ro c e e d i n g s a n d , th e r e f o r e , n o p e na l t y c o u l d 3 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 be levied on th e same. Th e A.O. brushed aside t he c o n t e n t i on of the assessee a nd levied penalty on the additions m a de of R s .4 0 , 61 , 0 0 0 / - ( R s . 3 0, 0 1 0 0 + R s . 1 0 , 6 0 ,0 0 0 ) , be i n g 1 0 0 % o f t he t a x s o u g h t t o b e e v a d e d o n t h e s am e a m ou n t i n g t o R s . 1 9,0 7 , 5 1 6 / - .
6. Th e m a t t e r w a s c a r r i e d i n a p p e al b e f o r e t h e L d . CI T( A ) , w h e r e t h e as s e s se e , w e f i n d, m a de d e t a i l e d s u b m i s s i o n s f o r his non a t t en da n c e in q u a nt um p r o c ee d i n g s and a l so e x p l a i n e d t h e so u r c e o f c a sh de p o s i t s a n d i n ve s t m e n t i n p r o p e r t y ,a l l d ul y s u b st a n t i at ed with e v i de nc e s . Th e assessee s t at e d that since he was u n d e r g o i ng medical t r e a t m e n t f o r k i d n e y a i l m en t , th e a s s e s s me n t p r o c e e d i ng s c o u l d n o t be a t te n d e d a n d n o e xp l a n a t i o n, t h e r efo r e , c o u l d b e o f f e r e d f o r t he s o u r c e o f t h e c a s h d e p o s i te d i n t h e b a n k a n d t h e i n ve s tm e n t i n p ro p e r t y . M e d i c al r e p or t s o f t h e C l i n i c s / ho s p i t al s w h e r e t h e t r e a tm e n t w a s ta k e n w a s f i l e d. H e f u r t h e r s t at ed t h a t t h e s o u r ce o f c a s h d e p o s i t i n b a n k and the i nv e s tm e n t in pr o p er t y , a m o u nt i n g in all to R s . 4 0 , 6 1 ,0 0 0 / - , w a s f r o m t h e s al e o f a p r o p e r t y fo r R s . 5 0 l a c s . I t w a s c o nt e n d e d t h a t t h e a s s e s s e e h a d e nt e r e d i n to an a g r e e m e nt to sell his pr o p e r t y to two persons j o i n t l y ,S h . A v i na sh Jain & S h . Pr a b h j e e t S i n g h ,fo r Rs.50 l a c s , v i de a g r e em e n t d a t ed 1 6 - 12 - 0 8 , r e ce i v i n g fu l l a m o u nt from t h em and that a G e n er al Power of A t to r n e y w as e x e c u t e d i n t h e i r n a m e . C o p i e s of t h e a g r e e me n t to s e l l a n d d u l y a t t e st e d po w e r o f a t t or n e y s w e r e f i l ed . I t w a s t h i s a m o u n t , t he a s s es s e e c o n te n d e d , w h i c h h a d b e e n d e p o s i t e d i n b a n k a nd i n ve s t e d i n pr o p e r t y . I t w a s f u r t h er c o n t e n d e d that the sale of the p r o p e rt y was r e g i st e re d in t he s u c c e e d i ng y e a r o n 1 4 - 1 0 - 0 9 , by t h e a s s e s s e e on b e h a l f o f t h e P o w e r o f a tt o r n e y h o l d e rs a n d c h e q u e s r ec e i v e d f o r c o n s i d e r at i o n . L d . C o u n s el c o nt e n d e d th a t t he AO had mistaken this payment as re ce i v e d by him on sale of p r o p e r t y a n d t h er e f o r e re j e c t ed th e a s s e ss e e s e x pl a n a t i o n o f s o u r c e o f d e p o si t i n b a n k a n d i n ve s t m e n t a s b e i ng f r o m s a l e o f h i s p r o p e rt y , w h i l e t h e f ac t w a s t h a t t h e a ss e s s e e ha d 4 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 a l r e a d y r e c ei v e d p a y m e n t i n t h e i m p u g n e d y e a r on e n t e r i n g i n t o a n a g r e e men t t o s el l . Th e c o n t e n t i on r a i s ed b y t h e a s s e s s e e a s r ep ro d u c e d i n t h e o rd e r o f t h e CI T( A) a t para 3 . 2 o f hi s o r d er a r e a s u nd e r :
3.2. At the time of appellate proceedings, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed written submission on 14.10.2014 which are as under:-OUR SUBMISSION:-
Sir , your attention is invited toward the following facts which are very much incidental to the facts as well as circumstance of the case which passing the order U/s 143(3) as well as thereafter passing of the order U/s 271(1) (c ) of the I.TaxAct:-
Notice U/s 143(2) was issued on 30.08.2010 and was served by affixture on 27.09.2010 and thereafter the case was transferred to Range II from Range VI as the juhsdiction falls under Range II Ludhiana at that time.
Notice U/s 142(1) along with notice U/s 143(2) was issued on 27.10.2011 for 12.08.2011 and was served upon the assesse on 27.10.2011 for 02.11.2011 as he could not attend the proceedings, again notice U/s 142(1) was issued on
04.11.2011 for 18.11.2011, though again he could not provide the required documents.
Again notice was issued on 01.12.2011 U/s 142(1) for 09.12.2011 . Copy of the bank statement along with copy of the title deed was provided to the A.O at the time of assessment. The A. O was very well aware of the circumstance of the assessee as at on difference occasion the notice server reported at the house was locked or assessee not available at the place, in fact the assessee was hospitalized number of time for his dialysis .
That it was already reported by the notice server order page 2 para 4 of the body of the order that "He went at the given address and the assessee was not available and his wife refused to receive the notice".
That it was again reported by the notice server on 22.12.2011 was "no one opened the door of the notice as he knocked the door twice".
The assessee has been undergoing treatment since 2008 within the city from difference hospitals. That during the period of assessement and even before and after he had been undergoing treatment, the details as :-
DMC -Hero Heart Ludhiana Dt 11.11.2008
Kidney Hypertension Clince Dt 21.11.2011
Ludhiana Mediways Dt 29.11.2011
Ludhiana Mediciti Dt 19.12.2011
Attached vide Paper Book SrNo 1
That the counsel of the assessee appeared on 09.12.2011 and produced the copy of the saving account with Syndicate Bank Miller Ganj Ludhiana a/c no 81532010004980 and was asked to produce the source of deposit in the saving account of the assessee.
That the information relating the cash deposit by the assessee into his saving account with Syndicate Bank miller Ganj Ludhiana to the tune of Rs 30,01,000/-along with the copy of the sale deed was provided to the A. O on 20.12.2011 which has already been admitted by the A.O as per his order U/s 143(3) page No 2 para 5.
Hence the copy of the bank statement, Sale Deed of plot situated at H.No 244-H BRS Nagar Ludhiana measuring 400 Sq yds amounting to Rs 50 lacs as well as Title deed for plot purchased measuring 530 Sy yds at Village Thareekay Tensil Distt Ludhiasna forRs 10,60,000/- (Ex- Stamp Value) was provided by the counsel of the assesee on 20.12.2011 . As the assessee had been undergoing treatment he could not appear before the A.O at the time of assessement to explain the full details.
5 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017A.Y.2009-10 While going through the sale deed of H.No 244-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Ludhiana , the A.O took that the sale proceed of the plot had been received by the assessee vide Cheque No 519807, 519805 and 519806 for Rs 20 lacs , Rs 5 lacs and Rs 25 lacs respectively was completely wrong, though as per the title deed the seller received the amount (Not not the appellant) but the sale deed was made by the assessee on behalf of the power of attorney holder, the same has already been reiterated in the title deed itself the same was ignored by the A.O The sale deed of the property at H .No 244-H BRS Nagar Ludhiana has been executed by S Kuldip Singh on behalf of General Power of Attorney 'holder S Prabhjit Singh S/o S Karnail Singh resident of Guru Arjun Dev Nagar Samrala Road Ludhiana and Sh Pardeep Sharma S/o Sh Desraj resident of Janta Nagar Gill Road Ludhiana vide POAdt 17/1'2/2008 no 3810 Vasika No 22 Sub Registrar Ludhiana.
The AO had failed to appreciate the same , hence the penalty imposed by the AO is wrong .unlawful and uncalled for and liable to be deleted.
THAT THE THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT NO VERIFICATON HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A. O WHILE IMPOSING /INSHIATING THE PENALTY.
Our Submission:-
That the Sale Deed of the property situated at H.No 244-H Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar Ludhiana had been sold by S Kuldip Singh S/o S Avtar Singh on behalf of the General Power Of Attorney holder S Prabhjit Singh S/o S Karnial Singh and Sh Pardeep Sharma S/o S Desraj vide POA no 6810 dt 17.12.2008 and already stated in the deed that the POA holder are still alive and the POA had not been cancelled by the S Kuldip Singh.
Sale was made to Smt Amarjit Kaur W/o Late S Ranjod Singh S/o S Batchattar Singh and the sale deed was executed on 14.10.2009. The A.O misunderstood and took the different view that the amount of the deposit of Rs 30,01,000/-had not been reflected in the sale deed rather the sale deed was for Rs 50 lacs and S Kuldip Singh has received the same by way of payee account cheque as already mentioned in the body of the assessment order.
The detail of the transaction executed by S Kuldip Singh S/o S Avtar Singh are as under , which could not be provided at the time of assessement as he was not well and was hospitalized (details already provided) .
Assessee had entered into agreement for sale of property No 244- H BRS Nagar with Sh Ashwani Jain & Sh Pardeep Sharma jointly for Rs 50 Lacs vide agreement dt 16.12.2008 (Full and final payment received vide Sale Agreement stamp paper no H647167, H 647170 and H 647169 ) Attached vide Paper Book No 2 Copy of the Power Of Attorney executed jointly in favor of (1) Sh Avinash Jain S/o Sh Diwan Chand Jain and (2) Sh Pardeep Sharma S/oSh Des Raj executed on stamp paper of Rs 15 vide no 2487 and Stamp Paper purchased through stamp vendor Sh Tarsem Kumar Gupta L.No 22 and the POA attested by Executive Magistrate Teshil Ludhiana and recorded vide Affidavit No 207.910 dt 18/12/2008 , (S. Kuldip Singh had himself appeared before the Mageristate).
Attached vide Paper Book No 3 Copy of Self Declaration of S Kuldip Singh S/o S Avtar Singh dt 17.12.2008 stating that he was the absolute owner of the property situated at 244 H BRS Nagar Ludhiana and that he has sold the property jointly to Sh Avinash Jain and Sh Prbahjeet Singh and received the full and final payment and further stated that he shall be held responsible for the old title deed if misused . The same was executed on stamp per ofRs 15 No 12648. The stamp paper were purchased through Stamp Vendor Sukhpal Singh Uppal LNo 20 Distt 6 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 Court Ludhiana . The same had been recorded as Affidavit No 207.908 dt 18/12/2008 with Executive Mageristate Ludhiana .
Attached vide Paper Book No 4 Therefore the sale amount of Rs 50 lacs had been received by S Avtar Singh as per the copy of the agreement executed on 16.12,2008 with Sh Avinash Jain and Sh Pardeep Sharma and out of the sale proceed the amount of Rs 30 lacs was deposited into his saving account no 801532010004980 with Syndicate Bank Miller Ganj Ludhiana on 17.12.2008 THE PENALTY HAS ALSO BEEN RAISED / IMPOSED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A LAND FOR RS 10.60.000/- on 17.12.2008 Our Submission :-
As S Kuldip Singh S/o S Avtar Singh had received the sale proceed from sale of H.No 244-H BRS Nagar Ludhiana for Rs 50 lacs and out of the same Rs 30,01,000/- had been deposited in the saving account and that out of the sale proceeds / balance amount the available with the appellant the amount had been utilized for the purchase of the property situated at Village Threeka Ludhiana Therefore it is prayed that the penalty imposed by the A.O be deleted in full.
SrNo Date Details of Transaction Amount Net 17.04.1990 Purchased Plot at 244-H BRS 1,01,250/- 2,96,120/-
1. Nagar Ldh
-- Self Investments 7,50,000/-
2. 06.12.2006 Housing Loan raised from 9,99,900/-
3. Syndicate Bank 4 15.12.2006 Do 2,00,000/-
Do 5 15.11.2007 3,00,000/-
6 31.03.2008 Self Investments 2,00,000/- 23,99,900/-
7. 17.12.2008 Sale of Unit as per agreement 50,00,000/- 8 16.12.2008 Loan Settled Syndicate Bank 14,51,172/-
Village Threeka, Ludhiana (Cost plus Stamp Duty) 9 19.12.2008 Spend on Construction (With 11,48,800/-
drawals as per bank statement) 31.03.2009 Housing Loan raised from LIC 10 To Housing Finance Ltd. Rs. 26 Lac 15,00,000/-
31.03.2010 07.06.2010 Deposited Rs. 20 lacs in 11 Syndicate Bank a/c no 81532010004980 17.02.2011 Housing Loan raised and
12. deposited into Saving a/c with 7,00,000/-
IOB 351100001 11.03.2011 Do
13. 3,00,000/-
3,00,000/-
7 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017A.Y.2009-10
7. A d d i t i o n al e v i d en c e s , b y w a y o f c o p y o f a g r ee m en t t o sell d a te d 1 6 -12 - 0 8 , g e n e r a l p o w e r o f a t t or ne y i n th e n a m e s o f S h . A v i n a s h J a i n & S h .P r a d e e p S ha r m a ,c o p o f s el f d e c l a r a t i o n o f th e a s s e s s e e th a t h e w a s a b s o l u te o w n e r o f t h e p r op e r t y a nd t h a t h e h a d s o l d t he s am e to t h e t wo p e r s o n s a n d r ece i v e d f u l l a nd f i n a l p a y m e nt f ro m t h e m , w e r e f i l e d b y t he a s s e s s ee t o su b s t a n t i at e i t s e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h e s o u r c e o f c a s h d e p o s i te d a n d t h e i n ve s t m e n t i n p r o p e r t y . Th e Ld . CI T( A ) r e f us e d t o a dm i t t h e a d d i t i o n al e v i d e n c e s t a t i ng t h a t a d e qu a t e op p o r t u n i t y h a d b e e n g i v en t o t h e a s s e s se e e a r l i e r . Th e r e l ev a n t p o rt i o n o f th e CI T( A ) 's o r d e r i n t h i s co nt e x t a t pa r a 6 o f t h e o r d e r i s a s un d e r :
" 6. I have gone through the rival submission. I have also gone through the penalty order under section 271(1) (c). I have also gone through the basic facts of the case under section 143 (3) as stated by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings. I have come to the conclusion that the appellant does not have any regard to words any income tax proceedings either at the time of assessment of quantum under section 143 (3) of appellate proceedings of quantum before CIT appeal. The appellant did not file any additional evidence before the CIT appeal at the time of appellate proceedings for deciding quantum appeal. It is surprising to note that after passing so many years now the appellant has filed additional evidence without giving any cogent and reasonable reason for nonproduction of this additional evidence under 46A. The appellant filed application additional evidence wide its written submission dated 1 September 2014. The assessing officer was asked to send his comments on the written submission which have been received vide letter dated 15 October 2014. As reproduced above the assessing officer is perfectly that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity at the time of assessment and as well as the proceedings before CIT appeal for decision of quantum u/s 143(3). I have also gone through the detailed and is seen that although the appellant is reiterated that the appellant was the as under
medication during year 2008 and later on in financial year 2011-2012 as the medical reports filed by the appellant during the course of appellate proceedings now. I have carefully gone through these details and further seen that the appellant proceedings have taken place at later stages wherein the appellant was not prevented to file these details and additional evidence. Even at the time of penalty proceedings when the order is dated 16 January 2014 the appellant deliberately chose not to respond with regard to show cause for levying of penalty under section 271(1) (c). The 8 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 assessing officer has mentioned that written submission of the appellant filed at the time of penalty proceedings. During this period when will was not prevented file such additional evidence and additional facts then also the appellant did not file any additional evidence or document and did not come with the proper facts therefore the assessing officer has rightly levied penalty under section 271(1) (c)."
8. Th u s the CI T( A ) r e f us e d to admit th e ad d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e s a s a bo v e a n d w e n t a he a d t o c o n f i r m th e l e v y of p e n a l t y u/ s 2 7 1( 1 ) ( c ) o f t h e Ac t .
9. B e f o r e u s th e Ld . D R r e l i ed u po n t h e o r d e r o f t he C I T( A ) .
10. W e h a v e g on e t hr o u g h t h e o r d e r s o f a u t h o ri t i e s be l o w a n d h e a r d t h e Ld . D R a n d w e f i n d t h a t i n t h e f a c t s o f t h e p r e s e n t c a s e t h e CI T( A ) h a s g r o ss l y e r r ed i n n o t a d m i t t i n g the a d d i t i on a l e v i d e n c e s. Th e assessee, we find, had d e m o n s t r at e d r ea s o n a b l e ca u s e fo r n o t p r o du c i n g t h e s a me b e f o r e t h e l o w e r a u t h o r i t i e s b e i ng s i c k w i t h k i d ne y a i l m e n t and u n d e r g oi ng t r e a t m e nt fo r the same and duly s u b s t a n t i a t e d t he s a m e w i t h e v i d e n c e . Th i s f a c t w a s t i me a n d a g a i n r e i ter a t e d b ef o r e t he r e v e n ue a u t ho r i t i e s w h o h a v e f a i l e d t o co n t r o v e r t t h e s am e . M o r e o v e r ,t he a s s e s s e e e x p l a i n e d t he s o u r c e o f c a s h de p o s i t e d i n b a nk a n d t h e i n v e s t m e nt m a d e i n p r o p e r t y a s b e i n g f r o m s a l e o f p r o p e r t y a n d f i l ed a d di t i on a l e v i de n c e s t o s u b s t a n t i a t e th e s a m e . Th e a d d i t i o n al e v i d en c e s f i l e d b y w a y o f a g r e e me n t t o s e l l t h e p r o p e r t y e n t e r ed i n t o i n t h e i mp u g n e d y ea r , t h e p o w e r o f a t t o r n e y e x e c u ted i n t h e n a m es o f p e r s on s w i th w h o m t h e a g r e e m e n t to s el l w a s e n t e r ed i n t o , a r e a l l n e ce s s a r y f or d e c i d i n g w h e t h er t h e s o ur c e o f c a s h d e p os i t s i n b a n k a n d i n v e s t m e nt s m a d e b y t h e a s se s s e e s t o o d e x pl a i n e d a nd t h e r e f o r e w h et h er i t w a s a f i t c a s e f o r l e v y o f p e n a l t y f o r c o n c e a l i ng / f u r ni s h i n g i n a c cu r a t e p a r t i c u l a rs o f i n c o m e . I t is settled law that the a d di t i o n s made in quantum p r o c e e d i ng s d o n o t a u t o m a t i ca l l y l e a d t o t h e l e v y o f p e n a l t y a n d t h e a s s e ss ee c a n o f f e r e x pl a n a t i o n d u ri n g a s s e s s m e nt p r o c e e d i ng s t o sa v e i t s e l f f r o m th e r i g o u r s of p en a l t y , s i nc e penalty pr o c e e di n g s are d i s t i nct and s e pa r a t e from the 9 ITA No.1458/Chd/2017 A.Y.2009-10 q u a n t u m pr o c e ed i n g s . I n v i e w o f t h e s a me , w e f i n d t h a t t h e C I T( A ) i n t he p re s e n t ca s e ha s d o n e g r os s i n j u st i c e b y n ot a d m i t t i n g t he a d d i t i o n a l e vi d e nc e s f i l e d b y t he a s s e s s ee w h e n t h e a s s e sse e h a d d e m o n s tra t e d r e a s o n ab l e c a u s e f o r n o t a d d u c i n g t he s a m e e a r l i e r an d h a d a l s o d em o n s t r a t ed t h a t t h e a d d i t i o na l e v i de n c e s w e nt t o th e r oo t o f th e m a t t er a n d w e r e r e l e v an t f o r a d j u di c a ti n g t h e i s s ue of l e v y o f p e n a l t y . Th e a c t o f t h e L d . C I T( A ) , w e f i n d , i s a g a i n s t a l l p r i n c i p l es o f n a t u r a l j u s t i ce . W e , t h e r e f o r e, s e t a s i d e t h e o r d e r o f t h e CI T( A ) i n n o t a d m i tt i n g t h e a dd i t i o na l e v i d e n c es f i l e d a nd d i r ec t a d m i s s i o n o f th e s a m e . Th e i ss u e o f l e v y o f penalty is f u r th e r r e s t or e d to the CI T( A ) to verify the e v i d e n c e s f i l ed b y t h e as s e s s ee a n d t h er e a f t er a d j u d i ca t e the s a me in a c c o r d a n ce w i th law after gi v i n g du e o p p o r t u n i t y o f he a r i n g t o t h e as se s s e e .
11. I n t h e re s u l t , th e a p p e a l f i l ed b y t h e a s s e s se e i s , t h e r e f o r e, a l l o w ed f o r s t at i s t i c a l p u r p o s e s .
O r d e r p r on o u n c ed i n t h e O p e n Cou r t .
Sd/- Sd/-
दवा संह अ नपणा$
ू ग&ता
ु
(DIVA SINGH) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA)
याय+क सद"य/ Judicial Member लेखा सद"य/ Accountant Member
दनांक /Dated: 30th November, 2018
*रती*
आदे श क त*ल+प अ,े+षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. आयकर आय-त
ु / CIT
4. आयकर आय-त
ु (अपील)/ The CIT(A)
5. +वभागीय त न0ध, आयकर अपील#य आ0धकरण, च2डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH
6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File