Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shivam Corporation,, Ahmedabad vs Assessee on 31 March, 2006
-1-
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD BENCH "B" AHMEDABAD
Before S/Shri Bhavnesh Saini, JM and D.C.Agrawal, AM
ITA No.2137/Ahd/2004 & ITA
No.1560/Ahd/2006
Asst. Year :1998-99
Shivam Corporation, V/s. Income-tax Officer,
c/o P. M. Patel & Co., Ward 9(2), Vasupujya
2, Third floor Building, Ashram
"Sahayoga", Opp. Road, Ahmedabad.
Dinbai tower, Lal
Darwaja 380 001.
(Appellant) .. (Respondent)
Appellant by :- Shri P. M. Patel, AR
Respondent by:- Smt. Neeta Shah, Sr. DR
ORDER
Per D. C. Agrawal, Accountant Member.
These two appeals have been filed by the assessee against the orders of ld. CIT(A) 27.02.2004 and dated 31.03.2006. Since both the appeals pertain to the same assessee these are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
ITA No.2137/Ahd/2004 Asst. Year 1998-99:2. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds :-
1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - Xll Ahmedabad is not justified on facts and even on law to confirm the addition of Rs. 11,90,000 on account of seven tenaments allotted to Ahuja Groups, in the hands of M/s. Shivam Corporation.
2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XII, Ahmedabad ought to have considered various facts which have not been considered before confirming addition of Rs. 11,90,000 on account of seven tenaments allotted to Ahuja Groups in the hands of M/s. Shivam Corporation.
3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XII, Ahmedabad is not justified on facts and even on law to confirm the addition of Rs. 2,16,120 on account of extra land of two flats in the hands of M/s, Shivam Corporation,
4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XII.
Ahmedabad is not justified on facts and even on law to confirm Rs. 22,10,000 so called unaccounted money received from 13 members of the society other than Ahuja Groups in the hands of M/s, Shivam Corporation without any remote evidences.
5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - XII, Ahmedabad before confirming Rs, 22,10,000 so called unaccounted money received from 13 members of the society other than Ahuja Groups without verifying the date of becoming member in the Assessment Year 1998-199, as in many cases they were not members of the society in Assessment Year 1998-99, as appeared from the chart attached with assessment order.
3. The facts of the case are that the assessee firm is a Builder and during the year under consideration it has carried out development and construction work of tenements for the Society namely Sant Nirankari Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. at Naroda, Ahmedabad. The original assessment under section 143(1)(a) was completed on 2.8.1999 on an income of Rs.6781/-. But subsequently notice under section 147/148(1) was given to the assessee on the basis of documents seized during the course of search on Super Group of Industries on 19.12.1997. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Karamchand Gangvani, Manager of Super Industry, one diary A-4 was seized which showed that Super 2 Group had purchased seven tenements from the assessee firm built in Radhey Scheme for the Sant Nirankari Society. The amounts in the diary were written in code and Shri Janak V. Patel, Managing Partner of the assessee firm had signed this diary to certify the receipt of cash. The summary of cash payments as reproduced by the AO in his order is as under :-
Date Code Amount
08.09.87 400.00 40,000/-
09.09.97 1000.00 1,00,000/-
10.09.97 2000.00 2,00,000/-
13.09.97 1000.00 1,00,000/-
29.09.97 5000.00 5,00,000/-
28.09.97 1000.00 1,00,000/-
04.10.97 600.00 60,000/-
07.10.97 2500.00 2,50,000/-
14.10.97 2500.00 2,50,000/-
18.10.97 500.00 50,000/-
24.10.97 1500.00 1,50,000/-
29.10.97 500.00 50,000/-
Total 18,50,000/-
Statement of Shri Janak V. Patel was recorded on oath on 24.12.1997 as well as on 18.3.1998 wherein the fact of receipt of cash from Super Group was admitted. Shri Janak V. Patel admitted as under :-
"The writing on page 1 to 3 etc. is in my hand and I have mentioned receipt of various amounts for sale of various tenements. These tenements having No.3,12,15,18,25,26 & 29 (total 7) were sold to Sh. Shanker Ahuja of Super Bakers. The diary contains details of receipt of both the cash and cheque from him."
He confirmed that receipt of amount in cash was written in code after removing two zeros (00) and that signatures on the pages of the diary were made by him to confirm the receipt of cash. He unequivocally 3 admitted to have received cash of Rs.18,50,000/- in respect of seven tenements sold to Shri Shanker Ahuja and other persons on his direction. So far as the present appeal is concerned there is no dispute on the issue that entries in the diary A-4 found from the possession of Shri Karamchand Gangvani, Manager of Super Industries were written by Shri Janak V. Patel. They were in code by removing two zeros (00) and that a cash of Rs.18,50,000/- was received by Shri Janak V. Patel for the sale of seven tenements to Super Group or concerns under its control. The cost of each tenement in the books was recorded at Rs.2,81,000/- whereas actual cost of each tenement was determined at Rs.4,51,000/- on the basis of code "ALL DEA" written on page 1 of diary A-4 which meant 451 and which further meant Rs.4,51,000/-. The assessing authorities determined and it was accepted without dispute that codification of numerials into English Alphabets were on the basis of following formula:-
Figure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Alphabets A B C D E F G H I Z
Thus "ALL DEA" meant all flats were purchased at 4,51,000 i.e. Rs.4,51,000/- each. The total amount of seven flats were worked out at Rs.31,51,000/-. In addition to this Shri Janak V. Patel admitted to have received a further sum of Rs.1,56,120/- and Rs.60,000/- for extra land sold by him for tenements No.3 & 18 as stated by him. Since a sum of Rs.2,81,000/- was recorded in the books as sale price of each tenements then the difference between Rs.4,51,000/- and Rs.2,81,000/- i.e. Rs.1,70,000/- was worked out as cash collected by Shri Janak V. Patel on behalf of the assessee firm being over and above sale consideration recorded in the books of Sant Nirankari Society. The total of such unrecorded sale consideration for seven tenements was worked out to 4 Rs.11,90,000/-(i.e. 7 x Rs.1,70,000/-). The AO issued show cause notice to the assessee to show why not the sum of Rs.11,90,000/- being the sum realized/received/collected from Shri Ahuja over and above the sale consideration recorded in the regular books of the Society be not taxed in the hands of the firm on substantive basis. No reply was furnished to the AO in response to the show cause notice and accordingly AO proposed this sum as an addition on substantive basis. He also proceeded to tax this sum on protective basis in the hands of Shri Janak V. Patel.
4. The AO thereafter noticed that the firm has in fact sold 28 tenements during two years. The 13 tenements were booked for sale in addition to seven tenements sold to Super Group. The AO inferred that assessee must have collected similar amount of 'on money' on sale of 13 tenements. He accordingly worked out that @ 1,70,000/- assessee must have collected further sum of Rs.22,10,000/-, even though no documentary evidence was found in respect of sale of these 13 tenements. The AO accordingly added the sum of Rs.22,10,000/- as assessee's income from undisclosed sources. The AO further found that assessee had received a sum of Rs.1,56,120/- and Rs.60,000/- from Super Group for sale of tenements No.3 & 18 in respect of additional land attached with those tenements. He accordingly proposed further addition of Rs.2,16,120/-.
5. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- by observing as under :-
"2.4 I have considered the facts of the case, the order of the AO and the submissions made by the appellant. It is clearly brought out in the assessment order based on the seized documents in the case of Super Group, on the basis of statement of Shri Karamchand Gangvani, 5 Manager of Super Group, two statements of Shri Janak V. Patel, partner of the firm recorded by the department and the entries in the seized documents as well as in the books of accounts of Nirankari Co-op. Hsg. Society, there remains no doubt that the appellant firm received cash over and above the agreement price and the quantum of such money has been clearly admitted by Shri Janak V. Patel and Karamchand Gangvani, there remains nothing more to prove that both the amounts of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- represent unaccounted income of the appellant received out of books of accounts. During the course of hearing by AO had clearly issued a show cause notice to the appellant as to why the sale consideration of Rs.11,90,000/- received from Shri Ahuja and not recorded in regular books of accounts may not be added to the total income of the firm on substantive basis. However, there was no reply from the appellant on this query. The AO therefore, concluded that the assessee had nothing to say in the matter and amounts to admission that this amount represented the income of the firm. The AO in his order, in para 8 further stated that though it is mentioned that assessee firm as a supervisor of the project and the receipts from the members the and the payments for construction and labour are recorded in the books of the society, the additions have been made in case of firm on substantive basis as the entire financial and managerial control of the society was in the hands of the assessee on the basis of the development agreement made by the firm with society and further the assessee itself has also made disclosure under VDIS '97 scheme in Asst. Year 1997-98 in respect of undisclosed income arising from business of supervision of building construction work of societies. I, therefore, confirm the two additions made by the AO in the hands of the appellant firm".
6. He also confirmed the addition of Rs.22,10,000/- by observing as under :-
"3.3 I haw considered the facts of the case, the order of the AO and the submission made by the appellant. From the discussion in the assessment order and the submissions of the appellant, I am inclined to agree with the findings given by the AO in his order. The decisions relied upon by the appellant are mostly applicable to a case in which search and action took place and no evidence of any on money was found. In this case it has been established that the appellant firm was in total control of entire financial and managerial control of the society for the sale of tenements. In the appellant's case there was no search and hence it cannot be said that the on money estimated by the AO of Rs.22,10,000 was not detected 6 from any document during the course of search. In this case there is ample evidence that the appellant firm v«re receiving on money In respect of tenements sold by them to various parties. During the year total of 20 tenements were sold and in reaped of 7 tenements there has been established fact that on money was received from Ahuja Group. In respect of these 7 tenements for the sake of their own convenience Ahuja Group was recording the payment of cash in addition to the agreement value from where the receipt of cash by the appellant was detected. It cannot be said that in respect of the remaining 13 tenements, the appellant had forgone the additional consideration of Rs 1,70,000 and that the appellant was charitable with the buyer of these 13 tenements. The on money received was not recorded by the appellant in the case of 7 tenements sold to Ahuja Group and hence naturally the appellant did not record the on money received in respect of 13 remaining tenements. On the basis of the principle of preponderance it is established that appellant received on money in respect of sale of 13 tenements also. Several courts have held that when there is evidence in respect of certain transactions that assessee has received on money or assessee has received higher sales consideration, the natural conclusion is that during the year under similar circumstances, the assesses was also receiving similar kind of sale consideration, unless the facts are drastically different from the facts in the case where receipt of extra money has been found. It is also a common practice and universal truth that builders are charging on money at the time of sale of flat/tenements and this fact cannot be denied. The Courts have held that a universal truth cannot be ignored. 1, therefore, agree with the findings of the AO that appellant firm has received on money in respect of the remaining 13 tenements also, booked during the year. Accordingly, I confirm the addition made by the AO."
7. Before us, ld. AR for the assessee submitted that assessee was only an agent/employee of Sant Nirankari Society on whose behalf it was working, constructing, developing the tenements. Therefore, it could not be the owner of money received. The amount received in cheque i.e Rs.2,81,000/- has been recorded in the books of Nirankari Society and, therefore, other sum received in cash should also be considered as part of the sale proceeds and should be taxed in the hands of the society. Alternatively, it is Shri Janak V. Patel who has received the cash, therefore, he should only be taxed. The firm as such has nothing to do 7 and no liability can be fixed on the firm in respect of cash received. He further submitted that out of seven tenements sold to Super Group five tenements were sold in the current year and two tenements in Asst. Year 1999-2000. He submitted that tenements No.3,12,15,18 & 29 were booked during Asst. Year 1998-99 whereas tenements No.25 & 26 were booked in Asst. Year 1999-2000. A sum of Rs.8,95,000 has been shown to have recorded in the books of Nirankari Society. He submitted that in respect of five tenements a total sum of Rs.21,50,000/- was received, out of which Rs. 3,00,000/- was by cheque and Rs.18,50,000/- was by cash. Since sum of Rs.8,95,000/- was shown to have been recorded in the books of the society then it is only the rest of the sum i.e. Rs.12,55,000/- remained from being accounted in the books of the society. Therefore, the extra sum could only be taxed in the hands of Nirankary Society and not in the hands of assessee firm. The ld. AR submitted that there was an agreement for supervision between the assessee firm and Nirankari Society executed on 8.9.96 thereby assessee firm was entrusted with work of construction, supervision etc. Therefore, additional money should not be taxed in the hands of assessee firm.
8. On the other hand Ld. DR pointed out that Shri J. V. Patel is a partner of the firm and is carrying out all the activities of construction, development and sale on behalf of the firm. He is receiving and paying money on behalf of the firm. Therefore, whatever he is receiving on sale of tenements would also be on behalf of the firm. Secondly ld. DR submitted that no evidence was furnished before AO and therefore, assessment was made ex parte. Ld. DR then submitted that there is a clear admission of receipt of money from Super Group but thereafter there is no evidence as to where this money has gone. Since the assessee firm is carrying on all the activities of construction, development, allotment, sale 8 then cash received would also be assessee's income. She submitted that alleged supervision agreement is an after thought and it was never submitted before the lower authorities.
9. In respect of addition of Rs.22,10,000/- ld. AR submitted that no evidence has been found in the search so as to show that any cash portion has been received on their sale. No enquiry has been carried out from the purchasers as to whether they have paid any cash money for purchase of tenements. Even in the statement recorded Shri J. V. Patel has nowhere admitted to have received any cash on sale of other tenements. The inference drawn by ld. AO & the ld. CIT(A) is incorrect and addition has been made only on the basis of assumption and presumption.
10. The ld. DR on the other hand, relied on the orders of authorities below.
11. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view addition of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- deserve to be confirmed. The reasons are that firstly there is no dispute that entries in the diary -A4 were made by Shri J. V. Patel as admitted by him in the statement recorded on oath. No contradictory evidence or retraction of such statement has been made. There is a clear admission that Shri J. V. Patel had received cash of Rs.18,50,000/- on sale of tenements to Super Group. There is no dispute about code and the amounts. The only dispute is whether this amount should be assessed in the hands of the assessee firm or in the hands of Shri J.V.Patel or in the hands of society. We have examined the supervision agreement and it provides complete authority to assessee firm to register the members for dwelling house, shops, to exchange new members in place of old 9 member, to collect contribution from the members, issue receipts for receipt of money, to arrange finance, to supervise construction, or give technical advice or to do all types of administrative work.
> The assessee firm is authorised to make plan for construction of the houses and shops, to supervise the scheme of construction to register the members for the houses as well as the shops.
> To determine the lump sum financial contribution and maintenance deposits.
> The assessee firm is authorised to collect loan contribution, construction contribution, supervision charges, other deposits, miscellaneous expenses etc. > To make allotment to various persons, to complete the legal formalities etc. > In return of this, the assessee firm is provided 5% on total contribution received from the members.
12. Even though on paper assessee firm is provided only 5% as supervision charges but it is not proved that money so collected by the firm through Shri J. V. Patel has been passed on to the society. Once the factum of receipt of money is established and assessee firm is authorised to fix the charges in respect of sale of tenements then it is difficult to believe in absence of any evidence that money so collected has been passed on to the society. What is passed on is only the amount in cheque. In absence of evidence of transferring money to the society money so 10 received and admitted by Shri J. V. Patel will be the income of the assessee. The second reason is that assessee firm is de facto acting as owner of entire development, construction and sale except transferring recorded sum received in cheque to the society. We have not been provided with any constitution of Nirankari Society or their office bearers so as to appreciate the stand of the assessee that it is acting only in fiduciary capacity. To us, the society is only a cover whereas real owner is the firm and the receipts are accordingly divided between the two i.e. the recorded price are transferred in the books of society whereas unrecorded receipts are pocketed by the firm. In view of this, we confirm the order of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- being additional receipts on sale of tenements to Super Group and its concerns. The argument of ld. AR is that proceeds in respect of five tenements be taxed in the current year is not acceptable because no evidence to this effect has been provided. The books of account of the society are not produced or that of the firm so as to show that cash amounts from Super Group were received in respect of sales made in Asst. Year 1999-2000. As per the diary A-4 entire sum is received in F.Y.1997-98 relevant to Asst. Year 1998-99. Therefore, they are rightly taxed in the current Asst. Year i.e. 1998-99. As a result ground Nos.1,2 & 3 in assessee's appeal are rejected.
13. However, the same is not true in the case of receipt of 'on money' of Rs.22,10,000/-. The only basis for making addition is that Shri J. V. Patel has so stated during proceedings under section 132(4). However, we find that no such statement is given by him. The relevant questions and answers are question no.2 in the statement dated 18.3.1998 and question no.12 in the statement dated 24.12.1997 which are as under :-
11Q.2 I am showing you page No.1(One) of diary No.A-4 (pages 1 to 12) seized from the residence of Shri Karamchand Gangwani. You have signed on this page and you have also written 'ALL DEA'. What does it stand for ?
Ans.2 Actually this has been written in code language which is generally used. In this language the figures are replaced by alphabet as under :
Figures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 890
Alphabet ABC DEF GHIZ
Q. 12 What is the selling rate of various tenements in this scheme ?
Ans. 12 Each tenement is of around 165 sq.yard plot on which plinth
area is 85 sq.yd. The rate is around Rs.1200 per sq.yd. It is important to note that plot no.18 is of larger area and hence rate is more These two question-answers do not indicate that assessee firm or Shri J. V. Patel had received any 'on money' in respect of sale of other tenements. Even though a consequential inference can be drawn that if assessee firm is receiving 'on money' on sale of tenements to Super Group Industries then why it should not be receiving such 'on money' in respect of sale of tenements to others. This seems to be the only basis for making addition which in our considered view is not sufficient to cast a tax liability on the assessee firm. There should be clear evidence either in the form of statement or otherwise that assessee firm had received 'on money' on sale of other tenements. There cannot be a presumption of illegal collection of 'on money'. There is also no case for estimation of such receipts as it is not so made out by the AO. There can be only a suspicion that assessee might be collecting 'on money' from others as well but it cannot be a basis for making addition. The AO has not enquired from any other persons including alleged purchasers whether 12 any one of them paid any cash to the assessee. In absence of any evidence for holding that assessee had received 'on money' on sale of other tenements, addition of Rs.22,10,000/- cannot be sustained. Accordingly this addition is deleted.
14. This appeal filed by assessee is partly allowed.
ITA No.1560/Ahd/2006 for Asst. Year 1998-9915. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) confirming levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c). The AO had levied penalties in respect of addition of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- being cash money received on sale of tenements to Super Group of Industries and an addition of Rs.22,10,000/- being 'on money' thought to have been received on sale of other 13 tenements.
16. The facts of the case are recorded by us in the above quantum appeal of the assessee. The AO issued penalty notice but assessee did not furnish any reply except praying that proceedings be kept in abeyance till the disposal of quantum appeal. Subsequently when the CIT(A) confirmed the addition the AO issued further notice and then in response thereto also the assessee requested to keep the proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of quantum appeal. However, the AO proceeded to levy penalty as assessee did not furnish any explanation on merit. He accordingly levied the penalty of Rs.12,65,642/-.
17. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the penalty by observing as under :-
"4. I have considered the submissions of the authorised representative carefully and I have gone through the observations of the AO in the 13 penalty order. I find that a diary marked as A-4 was seized during the search proceedings in the premises of Super Group of Industries. This diary contained transactions records in codes showing receipt of on money by the appellant firm who was entrusted the work of development and supervision of tenements. The on money to the tune of Rs.18,50,000/- has been received on sale of 7 tenements to Ahuja group. This has been admitted by partner of the appellant firm Shri Janak Patel. The appellant's contention is that contributions from members were directly credited in the books of Co-op. Society i.e. Sant Nirankari Co-op Housing Society Ltd., therefore, on money given by Ahuja Group on sale of 7 tenements is the unaccounted income of the Society. This contention of the appellant firm has not been accepted by the CIT(A)-XII in his order dated 27.02.2004 in quantum appeal in the case of the appellant. While deciding the quantum appeal, the CIT(A) has held that the appellant firm has received cash over and above the agreement price and the quantum of such money has been clearly admitted by Shri Janak V. Patel and Karamchand Gangvani Manager of Super Group and therefore, the CIT(A) has upheld the addition of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/- as representing unaccounted income of the appellant received outside the books of accounts. It has also been held that the entire financial and managerial control of the society was in the hands of the appellant firm on the basis of development agreement made by the firm with the co- operative housing society and further the appellant itself has made disclosure under VDIS'97 scheme in Asst. Year 1997-98 in respect of undisclosed income arising from business of supervision of building construction work of the Society. The CIT(A) has also held that the appellant firm has received on money in respect of the remaining 13 tenements during the year. Therefore, the appellant firm was in total control of entire financial and managerial control of the society for the sale of tenements and as the appellant has not accounted the said on money, it is a clear case of concealment of income. Therefore, from a reading of the assessment order, the appellate order of CIT(A), the seized documents, the statement of Partner Shri Janak Patel and Karamchand Gangvani, Manager of Super Group, I conclude that there is direct evidence of receipt of on money by the appellant firm as the developer. The addition of on money has been confirmed in first appeal. Hence I am of the view that it is a clear case of concealment of income by the appellant. Hence I confirm the levy of penalty."
18. In brief, the ld. CIT(A) held that (i) the receipt of 'on money' has been admitted by the partner of the firm Shri Janak V. Patel; (ii) it is 14 reflected by the seized documents, seized diary-A-4 which contained the signature of Shri Janak V. Patel. The contention of the assessee firm that this money belong to Sant Nirankari Society has not been accepted in appeal proceedings; and (iii) the entire financial and managerial control is in the hands of assessee firm. The assessee firm had made disclosure in Asst. Year 1997-98 in respect of undisclosed income arising from business of construction and their supervision.
19. Before us, both the parties relied on the submissions made by them during the course of quantum proceedings.
20. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. In our considered view no penalty in respect of sum of Rs.22,10,000/- can be levied as this amount is deleted by the Tribunal in the quantum proceedings. Our view is supported by the decisions of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. VIP Industries (2009) 122 TTJ 289, Hon. Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT vs. Badri Prasad Kashi Prasad (1993) 200 ITR 206 (All), Hon. Rajasthan High Court in CIT vs. Mohd. Bux (2004) 265 ITR 326 (Raj) and Calcutta High Court in CIT vs. Bengal Jute Mills Co. Ltd. (1988) 174 ITR 402 (Cal).
21. However, the same view cannot be taken in respect of additions of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/-. It is because factum of receipt of cash by Shri Janak V. Patel has been proved but no explanation has been furnished as to whether this money is recorded. As no explanation in respect of these additions or explanation in response to show cause notice before levy of penalty has been furnished, the case of the assessee is clearly covered within the meaning of Explanation 1(A) to section 271(1)(c). According to this clause if assessee fails to furnish any 15 explanation then the addition made by the AO would be deemed to be income which has been either concealed or in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. Even otherwise the case of the assessee is covered within the meaning of Explanation 1(B) also. If we treat the explanation furnished before ld. CIT(A) in respect of addition we notice that it is not shown by the assessee were the money has gone after receiving from Super Group of Industries. The factum of receipt of 'on money' is proved but its further destination is not established by the assessee. No evidence as to its outflow or utilization or any destination has been furnished. The explanation that this would belong to the Society is also not substantiated inasmuch as books of the Society, constitution of the Society etc. were not produced before the lower authorities or before us. The claim that 'on money' would belong to the Society is apparently not bona fide as assessee has been authorised to carry on all the activities including development, construction allotment and recovery of funds. It has been held in the above quantum proceedings that assessee is de facto in control and management of financial transactions in respect of construction activities and, therefore, neither the explanation is bona fide nor it is substantiated. Thus we confirm the penalty in respect of sums of Rs.11,90,000/- and Rs.2,16,120/-. This appeal of the assessee is also partly allowed.
21. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order was pronounced in open Court on 04/06/2010
Sd/- Sd/-
(Bhavnesh Saini) (D.C.Agrawal)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Ahmedabad,
Dated : 04/06/2010
16
Mahata/-
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(Appeals)-
4. The CIT concerns.
5. The DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard File.
BY ORDER,
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT, Ahmedabad
17