Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur
I.T.O. (Tds) Ward 2(1), Nagpur vs M/S Ramani Timber Mart, Nagpur on 11 May, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA no.346/Nag./2017
(Assessment Year : 2010-11)
Income Tax Officer (TDS)
............... Appellant
Ward-2(1), Nagpur
v/s
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
Prop: Shri Panchan Premji Patel
Lakadganj, Nagpur 440 008 ................ Respondent
PAN - AAOPP5335R
TAN - NGPRO0382E
ITA no.348/Nag./2017
(Assessment Year : 2011-12)
Income Tax Officer (TDS)
............... Appellant
Ward-2(1), Nagpur
v/s
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
Prop: Shri Panchan Premji Patel
Lakadganj, Nagpur 440 008 ................... Respondent
PAN - AAOPP5335R
TAN - NGPRO0382E
2
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
ITA no.347/Nag./2017
(Assessment Year : 2012-13)
Income Tax Officer (TDS)
............... Appellant
Ward-2(1), Nagpur
v/s
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
Prop: Shri Panchan Premji Patel
Lakadganj, Nagpur 440 008 ................... Respondent
PAN - AAOPP5335R
TAN - NGPRO0382E
Revenue by : Shri Gitesh Kumar
Assessee by : Shri Abhay Agrawal
Date of Hearing - 07.05.2017 Date of Order - 11.05.2018
ORDER
PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals at the instance of the Revenue are directed against common orders dated 30th June 2017, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals)-2, Nagpur, for the assessment years 2010- 11, 2011-12 and 2012-13.
2. The common grounds raised by the Revenue are reproduced below:-
A.Y. 2010-11
i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the' Id C!T(A) erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271CA of the Act of Rs.16,97,450/-, Rs.23,24,297/- & Rs.32,39,415/- for A. Yrs 2010-
11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively.
3M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
ii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is a reasonable cause for the default whereas the assessee could not make out a reasonable cause for the said default by substantiating the claims with any cogent evidence.
iii) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. C!T(A) has erred in not considering the facts of the law, whereupon, the determination had been made by the A.O. Section 271CA is plain and simpliciter. It states in no ambiguous terms that" if any person fails to collect the whole or any part of the tax as required by or under the provisions of chapter XVII-BB, then, such person shall be liable to pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to the amount of tax which such person failed to collect as aforesaid. The penalty imposable under section 271CA is, thus, mandatory, unless the assessee is able to prove the reasonable cause. It was for this reason that the Supreme Court in Hindustan Coca Cola (Judgement dated 16/08/2007 in Civil Appeal Number 3675/2007) had stated that interest and penalty would still be liable even if an assessee is able to show that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee."
2. Brief facts of the case levying penalty are that the assessee is engaged in timber business and imports rat timber logs from other countries, process it into planks (cut to size) and sell the same in the open market. On a perusal of the order under section 201(1)/201(1A) r/w section 206C of the Act, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer had carried out a spot verification at the business premises of the assessee on 4th December 2013 and the he found that the assessee had failed to collect the tax from the buyers of timber as per the requirements of section 206C of the Act. It was explained by the assessee before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has been importing logs of timbers, cutting them into different sizes and was selling the cut timber planks to the buyers. Thus, the appellant contended that TCS is 4 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart applicable on sale of timber logs and not on sale of timber planks cut into various sizes and sold in the market. It was also explained by the assessee that the deductee / buyers had included the corresponding purchases in their books of account and have paid taxes thereon. The assessee in this regard has also filed confirmations and acknowledgement of return of income in respect of most of the cases of deductee assessees. The Assessing Officer considering the submissions of the assessee and keeping in view the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Sree Manjunath Wines v/s CIT, accepted the contention of the assessee to the extent of confirmation / ITR acknowledgment of deductee filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, however, in respect of remaining sales made by the assessee has held assessee to be "assessee in default" in respect of tax and interest. The assessee has accepted the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 201(1) and has duly paid the taxes including the interest in respect of TCS amount of ` 54,83,450 in respect of which the assessee has been held to be "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has levied penalty amounting to ` 16,97,450 for the assessment year 2010-11, ` 32,39,415 for the assessment year 2011-12 and ` 32,39,415 for the assessment year 2012-13 respectively. Being aggrieved by the order so passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred appeals before the first appellate authority.
5M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
3. Before the learned CIT(A) the assessee reiterating the stand taken before the Assessing Officer made elaborate submissions. The learned CIT(A) considering the submissions made by the assessee deleted the penalty by observing as under:-
"9.1 On careful examination of the material facts, it is seen that the AO has accepted the contentions of the assessee in respect of sale amounting to Rs.12,40,93,199/- on the basis of the confirmations submitted by the TAN holder treating the assessee 'as not an assessee in default'. But the AO has treated the assessee as an "assessee in default" for non-collection of TCS on the amount of sale to the tune of Rs. 54,83,410/-. The AO has accepted the explanation of the assessee in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. in the Civil Appeal No.3675/2007 dated 16.08.2007. In its decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Circular No.275/201/95-IT(B) dated 29.01.1997 issued by CBDT put an end to the controversy. The said Circular declares that "No demand visualized under section 201 (1) of the Income tax Act should be enforced after the tax deductor has satisfied the office-in-charge of TDS, that taxes due have been paid by the deductee-assessee. However, this will not alter the liability to charge interest under section 201 (1A) of the Act till the date of payment of taxes by the deductee-assessee or the liability for penalty under section 271C of the Income tax Act."
9.2 The relevant finding recorded by the AO in para-3 of the order u/s -201(1) is reproduced below: "Based on the submission made by the TAN holder from time to time, short collection of TCS has been worked out. In some of the cases, it was submitted that short collection of tax is leviable. In some cases, although the TAN holder has tried to produce necessary evidence to prove that the buyers have paid taxes due on such transactions of sale of timber, the same has not been considered as enough by the AO, for the reasons mentioned in the order sheet and agreed to it by the TAN holder. After verification of all the evidences submitted by the TAN holder, the TAN holder is treated as an assessee in default for non collection of TCS on sale amounting to Rs.54,83,410/-. Confirmations submitted by the TAN holder related to sale amounting to Rs. 12,40,93,199/- have been accepted and the TAN holder is not treated as an assessee in default for this amount. The reconciliation of sale and calculation of default is given in annexure 1, which forms part of this order."
6M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart 9.3 It is thus seen from the above that the Id. AO has treated the assessee as an ^assessee in default' u/s 201(1) in respect of the amount of Rs.54,83,410/- only. However, the AO has levied the penalty u/s 271CA in respect of the entire sale amount of Rs.12,95,76,609/-(Rs.12,40,93,199 + Rs.54,83,410).
9.4 On perusal of the Board's Circular referred by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it becomes abundantly clear that the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271CA of the I.T. Act, are independent of substantive provisions of law as stipulated u/s 201(1) of the Act. Penalty can be levied only in case of violation of substantive provisions of law. Thus the levy of penalty u/s 271CA is a consequential act which has arisen from the violation of substantive provisions of section 201(1) of the Act. Section 201(1) of the Act provides that in case of failure on the part of the assessee to make TCS/TDS, an assessee shall be treated as an 'assessee in default'. Thus treating the assessee as an assessee in default is a condition precedent for levy of penalty u/s 271CA of the Act. In the instant case of the appellant, the AO has held the assessee as assessee in default in respect of sale amounting to Rs.54,83,410/- only within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act and the AO has not treated the assessee as an assessee in default for non-collection of TCS in respect of sale amounting to Rs.12,40,93,199/- on the basis of the confirmations filed by the TAN holder which has been accepted by the AO in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (supra). In other words, since the assessee has satisfied the Assessing Officer that taxes due have been paid by the deductee - assessee in respect of sale amounting to Rs.12,40,93,199/-, therefore, the AO has treated the assessee as an assessee not in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act. But in respect of the balance amount of sale of Rs.54,83,410/- since the assessee could not satisfy the Assessing Officer, the assessee has been treated as an assessee in default u/s 201(1) of the Act. Thus once the assessee has been held to be 'not an assessee in default' with reference to the sale amount of Rs. 12,40, 93, 199/-, the ld. AO was not justified in levying the penalty in respect of the sale amount of Rs. 12,40,93,199/- and the levy of penalty at the most could have been contemplated only in respect of the amount of Rs.54,83,410/- in respect of which assessee has been held to be as an "assessee in default' within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act for want of non furnishing of confirmations and copies of returns of deductee assessees. However, the Ld. AO has levied the penalty in respect of entire amount of sale which cannot be held to be justified.
9.5 The Board's Circular is clarificatory in nature and levy of penalty is not mandatory and automatic and it depends on facts 7 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart and circumstances of each case. Therefore, to my considered opinion, the levy of penalty on the amount of sale in this case u/s 271C, when the assessee has been held to be not an assessee in default in respect of the substantial amount of sale of Rs.12,40,93,199/- by the AO is not justified.
9.6 The appellant has also challenged the levy of penalty u/s 271CA on the ground that the penalty has been levied without considering the reasonable cause provided by the assessee u/s 273B of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has submitted that by virtue of clarification issued by the Ministry of Finance vide notification No. F.N0.150/131/88-TPL dated 22.06.1988 to the Nagpur Timber Merchants Association, the assessee was under
the bona-fide belief that the provisions of section 206C are not applicable to the assessee. The relevant point raised and the clarification given is as under:
"Whether Saw Mill owners after purchasing and cutting it into various sizes will be covered under section 44AC and 206C., Reply - "Round Timber processed and cut into various sizes as per orders from markets will amount to processing and as such provision of section 44AC will not apply to saw mill owners. Hence no tax is to be collected at source fron them by a "seller". (Copy of the notification is enclosed herewith)."
9.7 The Appellant is in Timber Business. Assessee Purchases raw Timber Logs from other countries and mainly processes it into planks and thereafter, sells it in open market. After processing the logs into cut-to-size planks and on its further sale, the Appellant has not collected TCS nor obtained FORM No 27C as Appellant had bona-fide belief based on view prevalent at that time that TCS was not applicable on processed PLANKS. The Appellant had further relied on CBDT Circular No.660 issued on 15/09/1993 wherein it was clarified that TCS is not applicable to any buyer who obtains the specified goods for subsequent or second sale. However, out of abundant precaution, in case of logs to logs sale, the appellant had collected Form 27C or TCS was collected and paid accordingly. The appellant has further submitted that subsequently, the Appellant had attended one Seminar organized in the Timber Bhawan, Nagpur during April/May 2012 wherein various issues were discussed and clarifications were provided and Appellant to be on a safer side started collecting TCS or Form No. 27C from 01.04.2012 and onwards on planks sale as well. On 04/02/2013, Survey proceeding had been carried out by TDS Cell of the Department. The Appellant has specifically sought the clarification from Department regarding applicability of TCS provisions in his case. In support of his contentions, the appellant has filed Copy of submissions filed before the Assessing Officer 8 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart (TDS) Ward-1(1), Nagpur on 07/02/2013 & 15/04/2013 annexed at Page 1 to 10 of the submission dated 11th April, 2013 wherein the appellant has also referred to Board's Circular No.660. However, there was no response to the clarification queries to the assessee by the AO.
9.8 The appellant has thus submitted that the reason for non- timely compliance in collection of TCS was due to lack of clarity on applicability of TCS provisions on sale of processed cut-to-size planks and appellant's bona-fide belief based on legal opinion of Supreme Court Advocate which together constitutes a reasonable cause under section 273B for non-levy of penalty under section 271CA of the Act. The appellant further submits that there was confusion prevailing in the industry with respect to applicability of TCS provisions on Cut-size wooden planks. The appellant had sought clarifications from the Department from time-to-time but no clarification was provided. The appellant submits that the Department has not provided any clarification on appellant's express requests made in this regard, that the TCS provisions were not applicable on sale of processed cut-to-size planks. Copies of submissions filed before the lower Authorities are found to have been annexed at page No.l to 10 of appellant's submission dated 11.04.2017. The appellant thus contended that due to lack of clarity, the appellant had relied on the legal opinion sought by Timber Merchant Association and hence, based on the opinion of the legal expert, the appellant was under a bona-fide belief that TCS was not to be collected on Cut-size wooden planks. The copy of legal opinion sought is also found annexed at Page 01 to 15 of submission dated 27.04.2017.
9.9 The appellant during the penalty proceedings has submitted before the AO that the assessee was under the bona-fide belief that since they were dealing into cut size timbers which are directly used for the purpose of making of furniture etc. hence are not liable to TCS. Thus contended that they are involved in the manufacturing process of cut size timbers which are different from logs purchased in auction or imported from outside India. It is further submitted that the assessee is not liable to collect tax at source u/s 206C of Income Tax Act 1961 as e sales made in the case of assessee is not timber as it is but cut and processed to customized size as per requirements of the customers. The appellant thus contended that in view of clarification given by Ministry of Finance vide Notification dated 22.06.1988 to the Nagpur Timber Merchants Association, the assessee being a dealer of timber products is not liable to collect tax at source and the provisions of section 206C are not applicable in the case of assessee. It is further submitted that the assessee is not selling timber logs as envisaged u/s 206C of Income Tax Act 1961 but timber products which are different from timber logs.
9M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart 9.10 In support of his contention of bona fide belief that TCS is not applicable on processing of timber logs by cutting them into different size of PLANKS, the appellant has relied on the legal opinion sought in this regard from Sri Vijay H. Patil, Advocate, Supreme Court. The relevant finding of his legal opinion is reproduced below:
"As it is, only few specified goods are covered by the provisions for collection of tax at source. Timber is one of such items. If anything is sold which is basically not a timber, but timber made article, as long as what is sold is not Timber, then the provisions dealing with collection of tax at source will not be applicable. Therefore, if the saw mill converts them into some other article which though made out of timber, it cannot be called timber, though it is an article made out of timber. Therefore, article prepared by processing timber, such as wooden PLANKS though cannot be called timber; it may be a timber article. The section does not classify timber or any article made out of timber. It simply specified about timber. In the ordinary sense, timber means raw timber and if it is processed and constitutes some another article, the same though may be of timber can no longer be called Timber. As such, if the saw mill processes the timber, and converts it into some other article and if it is sold not as timber but as a processed article, then in my opinion, the question of application of the provisions of collection of tax at source will not arise."
9.11 In this regard, the appellant has relied on the following judicial decisions:
9.12 CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd & ANR (272 ITR 0545) (Delhi HC) : In this case the Hon'ble High Court has held that "Bona-fide belief of the asses see-company based on legal opinion of its internal legal cell that the retention/continuation pay paid by it in Japan to its expatriate employees deputed to India is not taxable in India and accordingly the provisions of Chapter XVII-B are not applicable, constituted a reasonable cause for not deducting tax at source and, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalty under s. 271C."
9.13 CIT v. Sencma SA France (288 ITR 0076) (Delhi HC) : In this case also the Hon'ble High Court has held that "Assessee, a foreign company, having not deducted tax at source from the salaries paid by it outside India to expatriate employees working in India in view of certain confusion that existed in relation to the obligation to make such deductions, Tribunal was justified in holding that penalty u/s 271C not leviable no substantial question of law arises."
10M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart 9.14 The appellant in this regard has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd. & ors . , (2009) 223 CTR 0020. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:
"Penalty under s. 271C-Failure to deduct tax at source- Reasonable cause-Sec. 271C cannot be held to be mandatory or compensatory or automatic because s. 273B states that penalty shall not be imposed in case falling there under- In the instant cases, non-deduction of tax at source took place on account of the controversial addition-Further, in most of the cases, the assessees have not claimed deduction under s. 40 (a) (Hi) -In some cases, the expatriate employees have directly paid the taxes due on foreign salary by way of advance tax/self assessment tax- Assessees were under genuine and bona fide belief that there was no obligation to deduct tax at source from the home salary paid by the foreign company/head office-Consequently, penalty under S.271C is not leviable in any case."
9.15 The appellant has also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Woodward Governers India Pvt. Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held that "Penalty under s. 271C-Failure to deduct tax at source-Reasonable cause-Sec. 273B starts with a non obstante clause which means that it has an overriding effect over other provisions of the Act-Initial burden is on the assessee to show that there existed reasonable cause which was the reason for the failure referred to in s. 271C- Thereafter the officer dealing with the matter has to consider the explanation offered by the assessee and ascertain as to whether the failure was on account of reasonable cause-Non-consideration of plea raised by assessee about existence of reasonable cause vitiated the CIT's order under s. 264-Impugned order set aside- CIT directed to re-examine the matter."
"Non consideration of plea raised by assessee about existence of reasonable cause for failure to deduct tax at source under s. 192 vitiated the CIT's order under s. 264 upholding the penalty under s. 271C; CIT directed to re-examine the matter."
9.16 Thus if, the relevant provisions of the law as stipulated u/s 206C, and the Notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance, judicial decisions relied upon by the appellant and the legal opinion of Advocate of Supreme Court are considered together with reference to the nature of activity of cutting the timber logs into PLANKS by the assessee, it, to my considered opinion, constitute a reasonable cause within section 273B of the Act, attributable to the non-collection of tax at source on sale of processed Timber by the appellant. The ratio of the decision of the 11 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart Hon'ble Apex court in the case of CIT vs. Eli Lilly & Company India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is applicable to the facts of the case of the appellant.
9.17 Thus, on careful examination of the material facts, it is seen that the submissions made by the appellant along with the documentary evidences such as copy of legal opinion of Supreme Court Advocate and correspondence with the AO seeking clarification from time to time on the issue of making TCS constitute a reasonable cause that the appellant was under a bona fide belief that TCS was not to be collected on cut size wooden planks. Therefore, to my considered opinion, under the facts and circumstances, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty u/s. 271CA for the reasons firstly; that the Ld. AO has treated the appellant as 'an assessee not in default' u/s. 201 in respect of substantial amount of sale in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola (Supra) and secondly; that the appellant has satisfactorily demonstrated that his case falls within the ambit of reasonable cause u/s. 273B of the Act which is attributable for non collection of TCS by the appellant due to his bona-fide belief that the cut to size planks of timber logs is not liable to TCS. Therefore, the penalty is not leviable on this ground as well and accordingly, the penalty levied by the AO is directed to be deleted.
4. The Revenue, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned CIT(A), is in appeal before us.
5. The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.
6. Per-contra, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer himself has not treated the assessee as "assessee in default". For this proposition, he referred to the orders passed by the Income Tax Officer (TDS) for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively which are placed in paper book.
Furthermore, the learned Counsel for assessee submitted that there 12 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart was a reasonable cause for the assessee for non-compliance of the concerned provisions. In this regard, he referred to the legal opinion obtained from an Advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court a copy of which is placed in paper book. The learned Counsel for assessee further submitted that the learned CIT(A) after appreciating all these documents / matters has rightly deleted the penalty. The learned Counsel for assessee, in support of his contentions, relied upon the following case laws:-
i) CIT v/s Bank of Nova Scotia, 380 ITR 550 (SC);
ii) CIT v. Eli Lilly & Company (India) (P) Ltd & Ors (312 ITR
225) (SC);
iii) CIT v. Mitsui & Company Ltd. 272 ITR 545 (Delhi HC);
iv) CIT v. Sencma SA, France (Delhi HC);
v) Woodward Governors India (P) Ltd v. CIT (253 ITR 745)
(Delhi HC);
vi) Hindustan Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26) (Supreme
Court);
vii) ITO v. The District Collector, Amravati (ITA No.379/Nag/
2016) (Nagpur Tribunal);
viii) ITO (TDS) v. Om Prakash Gupta (HUF) (47 CCH 0269) (Chandigarh Tribunal);
ix) Jaihind Projects v. Addl.CIT (65 taxmann.com 254) (Ahmedabad Tribunal);
x) ITO v. Sampatlal Badrilal Somani (ITA No. 382 & 523/RJT/205) (Ahmedabad Tribunal);
xi) Wipro GE Medical Systems Ltd v. ITO (24 CCH 0001) (Bangalore Tribunal);13
M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
xii) CIT v. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage (P) Ltd v. CIT (293 ITR 226) (SC).
7. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that, in this case, the Assessing Officer has held the assessee as "assessee in default" in respect of sale amounting to ` 54,53,414 only within the meaning of section 201(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has not treated the assessee as "assessee in default" for collection of TCS in respect of sale amounting to ` 12,40,93,199 on the basis of confirmation filed by TAN holder which has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Coco Cola (supra).
Thus, it is clear that the assessee has satisfied the Assessing Officer that tax have been paid by the deducted / assessee in respect of sale of ` 12,40,93,199. It is only in respect of balance amount of sale of ` 54,83,410, the assessee could not satisfy the Assessing Officer and the assessee has been treated as "assessee in default" under section 201(1) of the Act. In these circumstances, we agree with the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that once the assessee has been held to be not an assessee in default with reference to sale amount of ` 12,40,93,199, there is no justification of levying penalty in respect of sale amounting to ` 12,40,93,199 and only the levy of penalty in respect of an amount of ` 54,83,410 remains.
14M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart
8. In this regard, we note that the assessee has made a reasonable cause for its failure to comply to the concerned provisions on the touch stone of section 273B of the Act. Provisions of section 273B of the Act postulate that concerned penalty need not be levied if the reasonable cause for the failure of the assessee to comply with the concerned provisions of the Act is proved. In this regard, the assessee has submitted the extant legal opinion of an Advocate of Hon'ble Supreme Court who had opined that the assessee was not liable to collect the TCS on the items it dealt with. Similarly, the assessee has referred to the correspondence with the Assessing Officer seeking clarification from time to time. Hence, it can be reasonably construed that the assessee's case falls under the ambit of section 273B of the Act which is attributable for non-collection of TCS by the assessee due to his bonafide belief that the cut to size planks of timber logs are not liable to TCS. Furthermore, we find that the decision referred to by the learned Counsel for assessee in support of his case are germane and support the case of the assessee. Even at the cost of repetition, we may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. (supra) rendered by a Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court comprising of three of Their Lordships. In this case, it was expounded that when the conduct of the assessee is not contumacious, the assessee need not be visited with the rigors of penalty. In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedent, 15 M/s. Ramani Timbers Mart we are of the considered opinion that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has correctly deleted the penalty and, hence, we affirm his order for the all the assessment years under consideration.
9. In the result, Revenue's appeals for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.05.2018 Sd/- Sd/-
RAM LAL NEGI SHAMIM YAHYA
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 11.05.2018
Copy of the order forwarded to:
(1) The Assessee;
(2) The Revenue;
(3) The CIT(A);
(4) The CIT, Nagpur City concerned;
(5) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur;
(6) Guard file.
True Copy
By Order
Pradeep J. Chowdhury
Sr. Private Secretary
(Sr. P.S./P.S.)
ITAT, Nagpur