Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 23 August, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCHES "D.B."(SMC) : DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA.No.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016
Assessment Year 2003-2004, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008
Shri Naresh Chhabra
161, AGCR Enclave, vs., The Income Tax Officer,
Opp. Karkardooma Court, Ward-13(1)
New Delhi - 110 034. New Delhi.
PAN AAAPC2646L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri K. Sampath &
Shri V. Rajkumar, Advocates
For Revenue : Shri T. Vasanthan, Sr. D.R.
Date of Hearing : 10.08.2017
Date of Pronouncement : 23.08.2017
ORDER
PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.
All the appeals by the same assessee are directed against the different orders of Ld. CIT(A)-6, Delhi dated 21st March, 2016 for the A.Ys. 2003-2004, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-2008, challenging the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the findings of the authorities below. The Ld. 2 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
Representatives of both the parties mainly argued in A.Y. 2003-2004 and have submitted that the matter in issue is same in the remaining appeals. Therefore, for the purpose of disposal of the appeals, we decide the appeal for A.Y. 2003-2004 as under.
ITA.No.3906/Del./2016 - (A.Y. 2003-2004) :
3. During the course of assessment proceedings for A.Y. 2005- 06, the A.O. noticed from the Information Net Work of the Department ("ITS") that the assessee has not disclosed the S.B. A/c bearing No.xxx16791 with UTI Bank (Now Axis Bank), Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi. To verify the same, the A.O. issued summons under section 131 of the Act and recorded the statement of assesse. In his statement, assessee admitted that he is maintaining this bank account and the transactions recorded in this bank account are not disclosed in the income tax return. This bank account was opened on 20th March, 2001 and also contained transactions pertaining to assessment year under appeal. Along with this undisclosed bank account, the assessee was also maintaining two other bank account Nos. 1918 and 22411 with Punjab National Bank. The A.O. examined the entries recorded in these bank accounts and after considering the explanation of the assessee concluded that assessee has failed to explain the source of the deposits, amounting to Rs.13,15,715 in 3 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
these bank accounts and consequently, added the same to the total income of the assessee. The A.O. while making the aforesaid addition noted certain more facts in the assessment order that original return of income for assessment year under appeal was filed on 31st March, 2004 declaring income at Rs.1,14,710. The A.O. initiated re-assessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2010. In response thereto, assessee filed the return of income declaring Rs.2,76,867 on 8th December, 2010. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. The A.O. found that the above three bank accounts are being maintained by the assessee out of which the bank accounts with PNB were declared but the bank account maintained with UTI Bank was not declared in the return of income and to the Revenue department. The Assessee was asked to explain the cash deposits in the bank accounts maintained with UTI Bank. Assessee explained that cash deposited in the bank account in his name is on account of retail trade carried on by the assessee. The gross receipts on account of such sales is duly appearing in the computation of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. The A.O. also asked the assessee to explain the entries in both the accounts of PNB. The assessee in his statement admitted that bank account maintained with UTI Bank was not disclosed in the books of account and 4 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
entries in this Bank account represent undisclosed profit from the business. The assessee however, did not file any documentary evidence to prove that the assessee was carrying on any other business activities. No evidence of any sale, purchase or payment of sales tax, transport, billity, was produced before the A.O. to support for carrying on any business activities. The A.O. after discussing the issue concluded that credits of Rs.9,73,483 appearing in the UTI Bank (Axis Bank) account is unexplained investment which are not recorded in the books of account of the assessee and the same amount were added income under section 69 of the I.T. Act. The assessee also failed to explain the entries of Rs.2,73,270 and Rs.68,960 appearing in the bank account with PNB. Therefore, the same were also added under section 68 of the I.T. Act. A.O. therefore, treated the same bank deposits as unexplained income of assessee and made addition of Rs.13,15,715. Further, the addition of interest of Rs.83,861 was made as received from M/s. Nishan Bearing Co. P. Ltd., The A.O. therefore, concluded that assessee has concealed particulars of income for above unexplained income of Rs.13,15,715 and Rs.83,861 and initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
5
ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
4. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28.11.2011 partly allowed the appeal of assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs.7,33,450 in respect of this addition and his findings are reproduced in para 5.3 of the impugned order in which whatever entries were explained by assessee in these bank accounts were partly deleted.
5. The A.O. vide separate order levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act on the additions sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and on undisclosed interest income earned on deposits from M/s. Nisha Bearing Co. Pvt. Ltd., The A.O. in the penalty order noted that the undisclosed bank account came to the knowledge of the department in preceding A.Y. 2005-06 and the bank account maintained with UTI Bank and interest income earned on loan and advances given to M/s. Nisha Bearing Co. Pvt. Ltd., have not been disclosed to the Revenue department. The A.O. issued show cause notice before levy of the penalty but assessee has not furnished any explanation. The A.O. accordingly levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
6. The assessee apart from making written submission before Ld. CIT(A) to challenge the levy of penalty also submitted that penalty cannot be levied on the additions made above on estimate basis. The Ld. 6 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
CIT(A) however, dismissed the appeal of assessee. His findings in paras 5.5 to 6 of the appellate order are reproduced as under:
"5.5. From the assessment order and appellate order passed in this case, it is apparent that the AO as well as CIT(A) computed the undisclosed income in respect of the above mentioned three bank accounts on the basis of entries recorded in these bank accounts. A perusal of the assessment order indicates that the appellant has submitted that entries in the undisclosed bank account maintained with the UTI Bank represent transactions of undisclosed business carried on by the appellant. However, the AO has rejected the submission of the appellant and identified credit of Rs.9,73,485/- in this account as unexplained. Similarly, the AO identified entries of Rs.2,73,270/- and Rs.68,960/- in respect of bank accounts maintained with the Punjab National Bank. Therefore, the AO computed undisclosed income in respect of transactions recorded in these bank accounts on the basis of credits in theses accounts. The CIT(A) after taking into account deposits of cash, withdrawal from the same bank account and shortage of cash recomputed the undisclosed income in respect of transactions recorded in these bank accounts and allowed partial relief to the appellant. Therefore, there is no estimation involved in the computation of undisclosed income by the AO and the income was computed based on the specific entries recorded in these bank accounts. Similarly, the CIT(A) has also considered the entries recorded in these bank accounts for allowing partial relief to the appellant. Hence, the submission of the 7 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
appellant that the addition was made on the basis of the estimation is factually incorrect.
5.6. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the particulars of bank account in question with UTI Bank (now Axis Bank), Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi were concealed by the appellant from the Department. It has came to the notice of the A.O. through information network of the department (ITS), who has obtained details from the bank otherwise, the existence of this bank account and consequently transactions recorded in the same would never be revealed to the Department. The appellant deliberately did not disclose the existence of this bank account in his return of income.
The appellant, when confronted and cornered by the AO, had no option but to admit the unaccounted bank -account with UTI Bank (now Axis Bank). Further, the appellant could not explain the certain deposits in the accounts maintained with the PNB. Therefore, penalty u/s 271(1) (c) is attracted in this case for concealing the particulars of the bank account with UTI Bank. (now Axis Bank) which contained taxable transactions of the appellant and for unexplained deposits in the accounts maintained with PNB." 5.7. In terms of provisions of sec. 271(1)(c) of the Act read with Explanation-1 thereto and the judicial pronouncements in the case of BA Balasubramaniam & Bros. Co. v . CIT (1999) 157 CTR 556 (SC), CIT vs. B.A. Balasubramaniam & Bros. (1984) 40 CTR (Mad.) / (1985) 152 ITR 529 (Mad.) , CIT v, Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 60 CTR (SC) 34 / (1987) 165 ITR 14 (SC); TC 50 R. 474;CIT v, K.R. Sadayappan (1990) 86 CTR (SC) 120; (1990) 185 ITR 49 (SC); TC 50 R 795, Add. CIT v. Jeevan Lal Sah (1994) 117 CTR (SC) 8 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
130; (1994) 205 ITR 244 (SC); TC 50 R. 973 and K P. Madhusudanan vs, CIT 251 ITR 99 (SC), it is well established that whenever there is difference between the returned and assessed income, there is inference of concealment. In the case of New Bijli Foundry vs. CIT, 135 ITR 593, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court have held that the findings recorded in the assessment proceedings are certainly relevant in the penalty proceedings. It is not the law that any and every explanation has to be accepted. The onus laid down upon the assessee to rebut the presumption raised under Explanation I would not be discharged by any fantastic or fanciful explanation. Therefore, when it is proved beyond doubt that the appellant has deliberately carried out undisclosed transactions to evade tax through undisclosed as well as disclosed bank accounts, he cannot get away from the levy of penalty by furnishing irrelevant explanation about the manner of computation of income from undisclosed transactions.
5.8. In support of the its submission that penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in respect of estimated addition, the appellant relied on the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Aero Traders (P.) Ltd. (322 ITR 316) (Del) and in the case of Harigopal Singh vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (125 TAXMAN 242) (PUNJ. & HAR.). A perusal of these cases indicates that the ratio of these cases cannot be applied in the instant case as the facts of these cases are clearly distinguishable from the appellant's case. In the case of Aero Traders (P.) Ltd., (supra), the assessing officer estimated profit' after rejection of the books of account due to certain discrepancies. In the case of Harigopal Singh 9 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
(supra), the assessee, a sweets seller, was not maintaining any accounts and, therefore, declared his income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer, however, assessed the income at a higher figure by estimating the assessee's sales and gross profit. Therefore, in these cases, the AO has not accepted book results disclosed by the assessees. However, as mentioned in these cases, the AO could not specifically point out any concealment of the particulars of income by the assessees. However, in the case of the appellant, it has been established beyond doubt that the appellant has maintained an undisclosed bank account with the UTI Bank, the transactions of which were not taken into account for computing taxable income in the return of income filed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant has concealed the particulars of bank Account no.
055010100016791 maintained with the UTI Bank. Further, the appellant could not explain entries in the other two bank accounts maintained with the PNB. Therefore, the facts of the appellant's are totally different and the penalty was levied on the basis of entries recorded in disclosed as well as undisclosed bank accounts. Hence, the ratio of these cases cannot be applied in the case of appellant.
5.9. Further, it has been noticed from the assessment order of AY 2005-06, the AO from information network of the department (ITS) data of the department noticed that M/s Nissan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot has credited interest of Rs.88,949/- to the account of the appellant and deducted tax thereon. The appellant had not disclosed this interest income in his return of income. When confronted by the A.O, the appellant initially denied but later 10 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
admitted the transaction. The AO issued notice u/s. 133(6) to M/s. Nissan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot and obtained the copy of the account of the appellant in the books of M/s. Nissan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd., Rajkot. The A.O. in the assessment order of this assessment year made an addition of Rs.83,861/- in respect of undisclosed interest received from M/s. Nishan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd. and levied penalty u/s. 271 (1)(c) in respect of this addition also. The appellant accepted this addition and has not titled any appeal before the CIT(A) in respect of this addition. During appellate proceedings, no submission has been made in this respect. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the appellant has earned interest income amounting. to Rs.83,861/- during the previous year 2002-03 from loan advanced to M/s Nissan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd. but concealed the particulars of the same in the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2003-04.
10. In view of the above discussions, it is evident that the appellant has concealed the transactions of saving bank account bearing number 055010100016791 maintained with UTI Bank (now Axis Bank), Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi and also earned out undisclosed transactions in the other two bank accounts maintained with the PNB. Further, the appellant has concealed the fact of earning interest income amounting to Rs.83,861/- from M/s. Nishan Bearing Company Pvt. Ltd. In view of the above factual and legal position, the levy of penalty of Rs.2,03,985/- under section 271(1)(c.) of the Act by the A.O. is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the Ground No.2 is dismissed.
11
ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed."
7. Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated submissions made before CIT(A) and relied upon the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. Yashdeep Kumar in ITA.No.470/Del./2012 dated 3rd March, 2015 on the proposition that the deposits in the bank accounts were on account of receipts of business transactions on profit declared under section 44AD of the Act and so, addition cannot be made. Therefore, penalty may be recomputed on the basis of profit earned on the deposits only. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied on the orders of authorities below.
8. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The case of the assessee was reopened for assessment year under appeal when the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2005-06 were going on and it was detected that assessee was having undisclosed S.B. account with UTI (Axis Bank), New Delhi. The assessee in his statement admitted that he has not disclosed this bank account for the income tax purpose and the credits in his account represent receipts from its undisclosed business of trading in ball-bearing etc., Thus, it is apparent from the facts of the case that the authorities below computed the undisclosed income of the assessee in respect of the 12 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
abovementioned three bank accounts on the basis of the unexplained entries recorded in these bank accounts. The A.O. did not find any evidence of any business activity conducted by the assessee and accordingly, deposits in UTI bank were considered as unexplained deposits. Similarly, entries in PNB account were found unexplained which assessee has failed to explain and were disclosed to the Revenue department. The A.O. accordingly, treated those entries as undisclosed income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) however, partly allowed relief to the assessee. Therefore, there is no estimation involved in the computation of undisclosed income by the A.O. and the income was computed based on specific entries recorded in these bank accounts. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Assessee that addition is made merely on estimation is not correct. The assessee therefore, concealed the particulars of bank account in question with UTI Bank, New Delhi to the income tax department. The assessee had deliberately did not disclose existence of this bank account in his original return of income. When this fact was confronted to the assessee, the assessee had no option but to admit the unaccounted bank account with UTI Bank, New Delhi. Further, the assessee could not explain certain deposits in the accounts maintained with the PNB. The assessee could not explain many entries of these bank accounts for which the A.O. made the 13 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
additions and reduced partly by Ld. CIT(A) which not further challenged in appeal. Further, it was noticed by the Revenue department from Information Net Work of Department that Nishan Bearing Co. P. Ltd., Rajkot has credited interest of Rs.88,949 to the account of the assessee and deducted tax thereon. The assessee did not disclose this interest income in his return of income. The assessee when confronted of this fact before the A.O. initially denied, but later on, admitted the receipt of the interest. The A.O. also verified this fact from M/s. Nishan Bearing Co. P. Ltd., in whose books of account the interest have been debited. The interest addition was also not challenged before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, these facts clearly disclose that the assessee concealed the particulars of the transactions in S.B. Account maintained with UTI Bank and also carried out undisclosed transactions in other two bank accounts maintained with PNB. Further, the assessee has also concealed the fact of earning interest income from M/s. Nishan Bearing Co. P. Ltd. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, during the course of hearing, admitted that assessee has not disclosed the bank account maintained with UTI Bank as well as some entries of PNB accounts to the Revenue department. He has also fairly submitted that even the interest was also not disclosed in the original return of income. The assessee admitted in his statement, unaccounted bank account and entries contained thereon. The 14 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
authorities below have not made any addition on estimate basis but made additions on factual facts brought on record against the assessee which have not been disputed by the assessee. The additions which have been made by the A.O. and partly sustained by Ld. CIT(A) have not been shown in the original return of income and only on facts detected by Revenue department, it came to the notice of department that assessee has undisclosed income. Otherwise, the assessee would not have revealed the unaccounted bank account with UTI Bank, unaccounted entries with PNB and entry of interest so received to Revenue department. The assessee has not offered any explanation before A.O. to explain the above additions and whatever explanation was given before Ld. CIT(A) was not substantiated through any evidence or material on record. Therefore, Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is clearly attracted in the case of assessee. It is well settled law that finding of fact recorded in quantum assessment are relevant and have probative value. The assessee has however, did not produce any explanation or material in rebuttal of the case set up by the authorities below. The quantum additions have already become final because no further appeal has filed by the assessee on quantum. The findings of fact recorded by the authorities below cannot be challenged in the penalty appeals. Moreover, no evidence of business activity have been filed by the 15 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
assessee on record. Therefore, the contention of Learned Counsel for the Assessee that entries in the bank accounts relating to business activity of the assessee and penalty may be computed on profit cannot be accepted and as such, the submission of Learned Counsel for the Assessee is rejected. Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO vs. Yashdeep Kumar (supra), in which in the bank account of assessee there were several credit and debit entries which were considered as total receipts and since assessee declared income under section 44AD of the I.T. Act, therefore, order of Ld. CIT(A) was confirmed who has deleted the addition on account of deposit in the bank account. This decision will not support the case of the assessee on penalty.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors 306 ITR 277 and CIT vs. Atul Mohan Bindal 317 ITR 1 have held that penalty is neither criminal or quasi criminal in nature. It is a civil liability. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Zoom Communication 317 ITR 510 held that "the Court cannot overlook the fact that only small percentage of income tax returns are picked-up for scrutiny. If the assessee makes a claim which is not only incorrect in law but also wholly without any basis and explanation 16 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
furnished by him for making such claim is not found to be bonafide, it would be difficult to say he would still not liable to penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act". The concealment is to be seen with reference to the facts/income disclosed in the original return of income. It is a fact that assessee did not disclose all the above income on which additions have been made in the original return of income. Therefore, the assessee has clearly concealed the particulars of income within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. In our view, it is a fit case of levy of penalty. We, accordingly, do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act.
10. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. ITA.No.3907/Del./2016 (A.Y. 2005-2006) :
11. The assessee filed return of income at Rs.1,94,161. It was found that assessee was having an undisclosed S.B. Account No. xxx16791 with UTI Bank (Axis Bank). The A.O. computed the profit of assessee amounting to Rs.2,26,986 and disallowance under section 40A(3) of the Act, amounting to Rs.4,95,816 in respect of transaction recorded in the said undisclosed bank account. Further, it has been noticed from ITS data that M/s. Nishan Bearing Co. P. Ltd., Rajkot, 17 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
credit interest of Rs.88,149 and deducted tax of the same. The assessee has not disclosed this income in the return of income. Therefore, A.O. added the same to the income. Further, assessee made a claim of receipt of gift of Rs.8,50,958 which was treated as income of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition in respect of transactions recorded in the said undisclosed bank account, however, recomputed the addition at Rs.4,23,404 in place of addition of profit amounting to Rs.2,26,986 and disallowance under section 40A(3) amounting to Rs.4,95,816 computed by the A.O. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition of undisclosed interest amounting to Rs.88,149 but deleted the addition for gift amounting to Rs.8,50,958. The A.O. after receiving the order of the Ld. CIT(A), levied the penalty vide order dated 27th March, 2014. The Ld. CIT(A) on the same reasoning as given in the A.Y. 2003-04 confirmed the levy of penalty and dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA.No.3908/Del./2016 (A.Y. 2006-2007) :
12. In the assessment order the A.O. has made addition of Rs.1,03,418 in respect of undisclosed interest income from M/s. Nisha Bearing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Further, addition of Rs.96,750 and Rs.356 was made in respect of transactions recorded in the undisclosed bank 18 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
account No.xxx16791 with UTI Bank (Axis Bank). The A.O. levied penalty vide order dated 19th September, 2014. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the levy of penalty on these additions and dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA.No.3909/Del./2016 (A.Y. 2007-2008) :
13. During the assessment, it was found that assessee was having undisclosed S.B. Account No.xxx16791 with UTI Bank (Axis Bank). The assessee admitted that he has not disclosed this bank account. The A.O. noted that Rs.12,22,111 represents undisclosed receipts/sales of the assessee on which profit rate of 10% was applied and undisclosed income was computed at Rs.1,22,211 on which penalty was levied. The Ld. CIT(A) considering that the bank account with UTI Bank was not disclosed in the original return of income dismissed the appeal of assessee and confirmed the levy of penalty.
14. Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. It may be noted here that Learned Representative of both the parties submitted that the issue is the same in remaining three appeals as have been considered in A.Y. 2003-2004. It may also be noted here that in A.Ys. 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 the assessments were reopened under section 147/148 of the 19 ITA.Nos.3906, 3907, 3908 & 3909/Del./2016 Shri Naresh Chhabra, New Delhi.
I.T. Act because the above undisclosed incomes were not declared by assessee in original return of income. The penalty is levied in all the years on identical issue which have been considered in A.Y. 2003-2004. Following the reasons for decision for A.Y. 2003-2004, we dismiss all the three remaining appeals of assessee and confirm the levy of penalty. In the result, all the three remaining appeals of assessee are dismissed.
15. In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court 23.08.2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(N.K. SAINI) (BHAVNESH SAINI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Delhi, Dated 23rd August, 2017
VBP/-
Copy to
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. The CIT(A) concerned
4. The CIT concerned
5. D.R. ITAT D.B. (SMC) Bench
6. Guard File.
// BY ORDER //
ASST. REGISTRAR
ITAT : DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.