SUNIL CHIMANLAL GANDHI,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-8(3) (ERSTWHILE ACIT CC-46), MUMBAI

आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):

These appeals arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai in appeal dated 22/09/2017 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 31/03/2015 by the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(3) (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

Let us take up the appeals first in the case of Shri Sunil Chimanlal Gandhi. (A.Y.2006-07)- Quantum Appeal in the case of Shri Sunil Chimanlal Gandhi

3.1. Pursuant to the above, the ld.AO referred the matter to the Foreign Tax and Tax Research ("FT&TR") division of CBDT on 04.01.2012 vide letter no. ADIT/Unit-IX(2)/Mumbai/HSBC_Sunil Gandhi/2011-12.

3.2. The case was selected for scrutiny and ld.AO issued a notice u/s 153A of the Act on 21.01.2013, which was served on the assessee. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed the return of income on 23.07.2013 declaring the income of Rs. 58,889/-. Subsequently, the ld.AO issued a notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 12.09.2013. Vide Notice u/s.142(1) of the Act issued on 28.10.2013, the assessee was asked to furnish the details about the foreign bank account in HSBC at Geneva. In full cooperation with the department and in good faith, the assessee through different submissions filed the details as required by the ld.AO. The assessee reiterated in all his statements that he was neither the owner of the said bank account, nor did he have any beneficial interest in the said account. He consistently held that the account belonged to, and was operated by his son, Shri, Nirav S. Gandhi. Hence, he was unable to furnish details of the said bank account to the authorities.

3.3. In all his replies to the income tax department, the assessee continued to deny any possession, ownership or beneficial interest in this bank account. Further, on 27.03.2014, the assessee had submitted a notarized copy of the official certificate confirming that his son, Shri Nirav Gandhi was the possessor, ultimate authority holder and economic owner of the said bank account. Shri. Nirav S. Gandhi had also disclosed the said income pertaining to the account as his taxable income in Belgium and a certificate from the Belgium Tax Authorities confirming compliance with Belgium Tax Laws was also given to the ld. AO.

3.4. Further, when the statement of the assessee was being recorded on 20.01.2015 u/s 131 of the Act, the ld.AO again confronted the assessee with the Base Note received from the French Government and sought an explanation. The assessee continued to deny ownership of the bank account and requested the ld. AO to provide him a copy of the Base Note. However, the assessee was not provided with a copy of the Base Note.

3.5. The ld. AO while making the addition had also observed in his assessment order that the Base note received from French Government contained all the personal details of the assessee including his name, date of birth, place of birth, residential address, gender, nationality along with date of opening of bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva i.e. 16/10/2000 and amount balance lying in the said bank account in the particular year. Accordingly, the ld. AO concluded that this bank account belongs to the assessee and since assessee had not explained the source of the deposits made in the said bank account, addition u/s.69A of the Act was made in the hands of the assessee by giving a finding that the money belongs to the assessee.

3.6. It is pertinent to note that the Base note received from the French Government was very much available with the Income Tax department prior to conduct of search u/s.132 of the Act on 16/09/2011. During the course of search, we find absolutely there was no incriminating material relatable to this addition of deposits made in HSBC Bank accounts , or any other document relating to same, in any manner whatsoever, was found. Admittedly, the assessment for the A.Y.2006-07 was a concluded assessment as on 16/09/2011 (being the date of search) in as much as the original return of income was filed by the assessee on 12/07/2006 which was duly processed u/s.143(1) of the Act and that the time limit for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act had already expired as on the date of search. Hence, there is absolutely no quarrel that as on the date of search, the assessment for the A.Y.2006-07 had already been concluded and becomes unabated assessment. Admittedly the residential status of assessee is resident and ordinarily resident wherein the global income of the assessee is taxable in India. We find that assessee had always stated that the HSBC Bank account in assessee’s name was opened by his son Shri Nirav Gandhi for the purpose of securing his future (i.e. Shri Nirav Gandhi) and for sentimental reasons only. Hence, the assessee though gave a statement u/s.132(4) of the Act on the date of search and subsequently, had later retracted the same by not offering the disclosed sum in the return of income filed pursuant to notice issued u/s.153A of the Act. The very fact that income was not offered in the return u/s.153A of the Act despite giving a statement u/s.132(4) of the Act making same disclosures, tantamount to retraction made by the assessee.

3.7. During the course of assessment proceedings, the ld. AO issued notice u/s.142(1) of the Act dated 28/10/2013 asking the assessee to submit the complete copy of bank statement in HSBC, Geneva, right from inception till date. The said notice also gave an option to the assessee that if the assessee is not in possession of statement of his bank account, then he was requested to fill up consent waiver form to be submitted to HSBC Bank, Geneva for obtaining the bank statement thereon. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide letter dated 13/03/2014 reiterated his earlier stand and denied having any ownership or interest in the said bank account and further stated that he was not in possession of any information or documents in relation to the said bank account. With respect to the consent waiver form, he explained that the said form is irrelevant since he does not have any ownership or interest in relation to the said bank account and that he is not under any legal obligation under the Income Tax Act to sign the said consent waiver form, more so, when he is not the beneficial owner of the funds lying in the overseas bank account.

3.8. Based on the above, the ld. AO came to conclusion that assessee could not discharge his onus by either submitting the complete bank statements or the consent waiver form to ascertain the entire bank account transactions from HSBC bank. During the course of assessment proceedings, a statement was recorded on oath on 29/07/2013 from the assessee by the ld. AO wherein the assessee initially denied having any overseas bank account with beneficial ownership and in response to question No.15 raised by the ld.AO thereon confronting the assessee showing him the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act dated 14/11/2011, the assessee responded that his son Shri Nirav Gandhi is a resident of Belgium having independent business in Belgium for more than 20 years and that he has visited Belgium in the year 2000 and during the course of search visit, his son had opened a bank account in HSBC Bank in assessee’s name for securing the future of Shri Nirav Gandhi. The assessee also stated that he has not visited Belgium after the year 2004, in support of which he has submitted the passport for verification of the ld. AO. It was categorically submitted by the assessee by way of statement on oath that the said bank in HSBC Bank, Geneva was opened only by Shri Nirav Gandhi (son of the assessee) in the name of the assessee for the business and personal purposes of Shri Nirav Gandhi. It was categorically stated that the said bank account was operated fully by Shri Nirav Gandhi. In other words, it could be safely inferred that assessee always maintained that he was never beneficial owner of the transactions in the bank account maintained with HSBC Bank, Geneva. We find in response to Question Nos. 15 to 24 while recording a statement on oath by the ld. AO during the assessment proceedings on 29/07/2013, the assessee had categorically denied having any transactions in the said bank account with HSBC Bank, Geneva and submitted that the said account does not belong to him and it was all maintained and operated by only his son Shri Nirav Gandhi who is a resident of Belgium doing business there for the past 20 years. Again, the assessee filed yet another letter dated 19/09/2013 reiterating his earlier stand. We find that the ld. AO also records in para 8 of his assessment order that vide letter dated 27/03/2014, the assessee had stated that the said HSBC Bank was owned and operated by his son Shri Nirav Gandhi who is a non-resident since 1993 and presently is a resident of Belgium; that the assessee had submitted a translated statement of approval issued by the Belgium tax authorities stating that the full compliance of the same is done as per Belgium tax laws; and since the entire transactions in HSBC Bank account, Geneva has been disclosed to the Geneva tax authorities and the same should not be brought to tax as undisclosed investment in the hands of the assessee herein.

3.9. The ld. AO however disregarded all the contentions of the assessee and observed that the Base note received from French Government is in relation to the bank account in the name of the assessee and not his son. Since assessee had originally given a statement u/s.132(4) of the Act at the time of search and later on, he ought to have offered undisclosed income by owning up the funds lying in the bank account in the return filed u/s.153A of the Act. The ld. AO also observed that assessee did not co-operate with either furnishing the entire bank statements or by signing the consent waiver form in order to obtain the bank statements from the Swiss authorities. Accordingly, in the assessment framed u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act for the A.Y. 2006-07, the ld. AO proceeded to make an addition of Rs.1,26,18,254/- u/s.69A of the Act as unexplained money of the assessee. This addition was made based on the peak amount of USD 2,82,857.07 as on November 2006 (which is not relevant to A.Y. 2006-07) equivalent to Rs.1,26,18,254/- calculated at the exchange rate of Rs. 44.61 per USD as on 31/03/2006 and accordingly, this sum of Rs.1,26,18,254/- was brought to tax as undisclosed income for the A.Y.2006-07 u/s.69A of the Act. We find that the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the ld. AO.

3.10. It is absolutely not in dispute that there was no incriminating material found during the course of search in the case of the assessee relating to this HSBC Bank account maintained with Geneva. The entire addition has been made in the hands of the assessee only based on the Base note received from the French Government independently which has got nothing to do with the search proceedings u/s.132 of the Act and statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at the time of search. The law is now very well settled that in respect of concluded assessment / unabated assessment, on the date of search, no addition could be made thereon unless there is any incriminating material relatable to that year during the course of search. Reliance in this regard has been rightly placed by the ld. AR on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573 and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Continental Wareshousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) reported in 374 ITR 645. The ld. AR also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd reported in 397 ITR 82 to drive home the point that statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act does not by themselves constitute incriminating material. Hence, the argument advanced by the ld. DR in this regard is dismissed. We find that the ld. DR vehemently relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of E N Gopakumar vs CIT reported in 390 ITR 131 wherein it was held that there is no requirement for recovery of any incriminating material during the course of search so as to make the assessment u/s.153A of the Act to make any addition thereon. We find that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in 374 ITR 645 stated above had decided the issue on this legal principle which would bind this Tribunal more than the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court stated supra and in view of the undisputed fact that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search and in view of the fact that the statement made u/s.132(4) of the Act does not constitute incriminating material, we have no hesitation in quashing the assessment made u/s.153A of the Act r.w.s.143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2015 for the A.Y.2006-07. We also find that on similar facts and circumstances in respect of Base note received from French Government and in respect of assessment completed u/s.153A of the Act, the Co- ordinate Bench of Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Bishwanath Garodia vs. DCIT reported in 76 Taxmann.com 81 dated 21/09/2016 had also held that the ld. AO cannot make any assessment u/s.153A of the Act making addition to assessee’s income in respect of amount deposited in foreign bank since assessment for relevant assessment year have already been completed u/s.143(3) of the Act and no incriminating material was found in the course of search relating to said addition. Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and also Co- ordinate Bench decision of Kolkata Tribunal, the revised ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed.

3.11. Since the relief is granted to the assessee on the preliminary ground of absence of incriminating material in respect of concluded assessments, all other grounds raised by the assessee including the ground raised on merits need not be gone into and they are left open as adjudication of the same would only be academic in nature. We would like to specifically make it clear that no opinion is hereby given by us on the merits of the addition made.

7.1. Since the quantum assessments have been cancelled for the A.Yrs. 2006-07 and 2007-08 in & 7180/Mum/2017 respectively hereinabove, the concealment penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act levied for both the years would have no legs to stand. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee for these two years are allowed.

9.1. We find that all these appeals are in respect of penalties levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act by the ld. AO due to non-cooperation by the assessee with the ld. AO by not signing the consent waiver form. We find that the basic purpose of signing the consent waiver form is only to enable the Income Tax department to obtain the bank statements from the Swiss authorities in respect of foreign bank accounts held by the assessee. In the instant case, the assessee has always taken a stand that though the foreign bank account in HSBC Geneva was in his name, the same was opened by his son Shri Nirav Gandhi in the year 2000 when the assessee had visited Belgium. It was always stated by the assessee that the said bank account was opened by his son for securing his future (i.e. Shri Nirav Gandhi) and the said bank account was always used for business and personal purposes of Shri Nirav Gandhi. Hence, the assessee had categorically denied the ownership of the funds lying in the said bank account. While that is so, the assessee always felt that there was no need for him to give any consent waiver form to the Income Tax department. This action of the assessee was found to be of non-cooperative attitude by the ld. AO for which penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act was levied. In our considered opinion, the assessee has given a plausible explanation on the subject mentioned issue and the said explanation was not accepted by the ld. AO. However, we find that ultimately the assessments were framed by the ld. AO for all these assessment years only u/s.143(3) of the Act which goes to prove that assessee had indeed cooperated with the ld. AO for smooth completion of assessment proceedings by making some addition. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- a) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs ACIT in & 6204/Del/2019 dated 31/03/2021 b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 c) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Singh vs ADIT in ITA No.2900/Del/2005.

9.2. Hence, we do not deem this as fit case for sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act are hereby directed to deleted for A.Y.2006-07 to 2012-13.

12.1. We find that the assessee would be eligible for immunity from levy of penalty in terms of 271AAA(2) of the Act if he cumulatively satisfies the following conditions:- a) He has made disclosure of undisclosed income in the statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act at the time of search. b) He has substantiated the manner in which that undisclosed income has been derived by him. c) He has paid the taxes due thereon with interest in respect of that undisclosed income disclosed.

12.2. In the instant case there is absolutely no quarrel that assessee has satisfied the conditions stipulated in point a & c. In respect of yet another condition with regard to substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived by the assessee, we find that assessee had indeed replied on the date of search itself in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act vide reply to question No.4 that he is a partner of Nehal Diamonds and had earned income thereon along with his family members. It was also specifically submitted that in the said statement that he is associated with M/s. Nehal Diamonds since 1979 and the modus operandi of business carried on by him was duly specified. Since the disclosure was made only in respect of jewellery predominantly and that unexplained cash of Rs.3.5 lakhs, it could be safely concluded that the assessee had earned undisclosed income only from his diamond business which he has been carrying on from 1979 onwards and this is further strengthened by the stand that assessee does not have any other source of income other than this. We further find that assessee had duly filed the reconciliation of jewellery belonging to him as well as to various family members vide his letter dated 08/11/2011 before the Revenue. The said reconciliation statement further provides details of wealth tax returns that were filed and valuation reports that were obtained for the jewellery which was found in the course of search and seizure. The said details also provide that details about the jewellery that was purchased, details from whom it was purchased along with copies of relevant bills thereon. When the only source of income is from diamond business, it could be safely concluded and inferred that assessee could have earned undisclosed income only from such businesses, hence, the second condition prescribed in 271AAA(2) i.e. substantiating the manner in which undisclosed income has been derived has been duly complied with by the assessee in the instant case. Hence, we hold that assessee is duly entitled for immunity from levy of penalty in respect of undisclosed income disclosed during the course of search in terms of Section 271AAA(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied for A.Y.2012-13 in the case of Shri Sunil C Gandhi is hereby directed to be deleted.

Quantum Appeal filed by the revenue in the case of Shri Nirav Sunil Gandhi - (A.Y.2006-07)

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,26,18,254/- u/s.69A of the IT Act made on protective basis in the case of the assessee, merely on the basis of confirming the same addition on substantive basis In the case of his father Shri Sunil C Gandhi without appreciating the fact that assessee’s name had also appeared in the information received by the Government of India from the Government of France under the provisions of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) and the very basis of the protective addition in assessee’s case is to protect the interest of Revenue in the event of the substantive demand being non-recoverable?" The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground and/or add new grounds which may be necessary.”

15. We have heard rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that a search and seizure action was carried out u/s.132 of the Act at the residence and business premises of Shri Sunil C Gandhi and his group on 16/09/2011 by the Income Tax department. The present assessee i.d. Shri Nirav S Gandhi is the son of Shri Sunil C Gandhi, who is also covered in the search action. There is absolutely no dispute that Shri Nirav S Gandhi is a non-resident as far as Indian Tax laws are concerned and he is a tax resident of Belgium. It is not in dispute that Shri Nirav S Gandhi is carrying on business in Belgium from 1993 onwards. As per Indian Tax laws, for a non-resident, only income earned in India would be liable to tax. The assessee (i.e. Shri Nirav Gandhi) had duly filed his original return of income for A.Y.2006-07 on 30/06/2006 declaring total income of Rs.99,548/- comprising of interest income under the head ‘income from other sources’. As pointed out hereinabove in the quantum appeal for A.Y.2006-07 in the case of Shri Sunil C Gandhi in , the ld. AO obtained the Base note from the French Government which stated that there is a foreign bank account maintained in the name of Shri Sunil C Gandhi with HSBC Bank, Geneva. As stated supra, Shri Sunil C Gandhi had always maintained and stated that the said bank account in his name was opened by his son Shri Nirav Gandhi for the purpose of business purposes of Shri Nirav Gandhi and for securing the future of Shri Nirav Gandhi; that the said bank account was opened in the year 2000 when Shri Sunil Gandhi visited Belgium to meet his son and that the said bank account transactions are fully owned up and belonging only to Shri Nirav Gandhi, who is a non-resident. Since, the ld. AO had made addition in respect of peak balance of the amounts lying in the said bank account as on November 2006 amounting to Rs.1,26,18,254 (USD 2,82,857.07) on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Sunil C Gandhi, we find that the ld. AO had proceeded to make the very same addition in the hands of Shri Nirav S Gandhi on protective basis. The fact that the said transaction by at any stretch of imagination cannot be brought to tax in the hands of Shri Nirav Gandhi in view of the fact that he is a non-resident, has not been considered by the ld AO. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that since the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Sunil C Gandhi has already been confirmed for A.Y.2006-07 vide his order dated 22/09/2017, the protective addition made in the hands of Shri Nirav Gandhi (assessee herein) was deleted.

17.1. At the outset, we do not deem it fit to go into merits of the addition made in the hands of Shri Nirav Gandhi. We hold that Shri Nirav Gandhi, being a non-resident, is not liable to offer any explanation in respect of the transactions in the HSBC Bank, Geneva to Indian tax authorities. Hence, there cannot be any addition that could be made in the hands of a non-resident in respect of a foreign bank account either on substantive or on protective basis. On this preliminary ground, we are inclined to grant relief to the assessee (i.e. Shri Nirav Gandhi). We find that assessee has not preferred any appeal against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). We find that Revenue has challenged the deletion of protective addition made by the ld. CIT(A). Since assessee is a non-resident, at the cost of repetition, there cannot be any addition in respect of a foreign bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva in India either on substantive or on protective basis. Accordingly, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.

Quantum Appeal filed by the revenue in the case of Shri Nirav Sunil Gandhi - (A.Y.2007-08)

21.1. We find that these penalties are levied for various assessment years by the ld. AO on the ground that assessee has not cooperated with the assessment proceedings. But while narrating the facts of the case in the case of the assessee (i.e. Shri Nirav Gandhi) in supra, we find that the assessee, being a non- resident, had duly responded to all the queries raised by the ld. AO by giving written replies. The replies given by the assessee was not found acceptable to the ld. AO. That does not mean that assessee has failed to comply with the statutory notice issued by the ld. AO. In any case, the assessee being a non-resident, there cannot be any addition towards foreign bank transactions in HSBC, Geneva in his hands in India either on substantive or protective basis. Hence, there is no need for the assessee to sign in consent waiver form or any other document in order to obtain the bank statements from the Swiss authorities. However, we find that ultimately the assessments were framed by the ld. AO for all these assessment years only u/s.143(3) of the Act which goes to prove that assessee had indeed cooperated with the ld. AO for smooth completion of assessment proceedings. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- a) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs ACIT in ITA Nos. 6203 & 6204/Del/2019 dated 31/03/2021 b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 c) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Singh vs ADIT in ITA No.2900/Del/2005.

21.2. Accordingly, the penalties levied u/s.271(1)(b) for the A.Y.2006-07 to 2012-13 in the case of Shri Nirav Sunil Gandhi are hereby directed to be deleted.

24.1 As pointed out hereinabove in the quantum appeal for A.Y.2006-07 in the case of Shri Sunil C Gandhi in , the ld. AO obtained the Base note from the French Government which stated that there is a foreign bank account maintained in the name of Shri Sunil C Gandhi with HSBC Bank, Geneva stated supra. Shri Sunil C Gandhi had always maintained and stated that the said bank account in his name was opened by his son Shri Nirav Gandhi for the purpose of business purposes of Shri Nirav Gandhi and for securing the future of Shri Nirav Gandhi; that the said bank account was opened in the year 2000 when Shri Sunil Gandhi visited Belgium to meet his son and that the said bank account transactions are fully owned up and belonging only to Shri Nirav Gandhi who is a non-resident. Since, the ld. AO had made addition in respect of peak balance of the amounts lying in the said bank account as on November 2006 (Which is not relevant for A.Y. 2006-07) amounting to Rs.1,26,18,254 (USD 2,82,857.07) on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Sunil C Gandhi, the ld. AO had proceeded to make the very same addition in the hands of Shri Pranav Sunil Gandhi on protective basis.

24.2. We find that the ld. CIT(A) had observed that since the substantive addition made in the hands of Shri Sunil C Gandhi has already been confirmed for A.Y.2006-07 vide his order dated 22/09/2017, the protective addition made in the hands of Shri Pranav S Gandhi (assessee herein) was deleted.

31.1. We find that these penalties are levied for various assessment years by the ld. AO on the ground that assessee has not co-operated with the assessment proceedings by not signing the consent waiver form for seeking the bank statements from the Swiss authorities. When it has been consistently stated by the assessee (Shri Pranav S Gandhi) that he is no way connected with the foreign bank account in HSBC Bank, Geneva as it is not at all in his name, there is no question of signing any consent waiver form from his side. Hence, it could be safely concluded that assessee was asked to give the unwanted and irrelevant information which is not at all concerned in his case. This cannot be construed as non-cooperation by the assessee. Hence, we hold that no penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act could be levied in the hands of the assessee. However, we find that ultimately the assessments were framed by the ld. AO for all these assessment years only u/s.143(3) of the Act which goes to prove that assessee had indeed cooperated with the ld. AO for smooth completion of assessment proceedings by making some addition thereon. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following decisions:- a) Decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Shiv Kumar Nayyar vs ACIT in & 6204/Del/2019 dated 31/03/2021 b) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Globus Infocom Ltd vs. DCIT in ITA No.738/Del/2014 c) Decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Akhil Bhartiya Prathmik Shikshak Singh vs ADIT in ITA No.2900/Del/2005.

31.2. Hence, we do not deem this as fit case for sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act are hereby directed to be deleted for A.Y.2006- 07 to 2012-13 in the case of Shri Pranav Sunil Gandhi.

Sr. ITA No. A.Y. Name of the Assessee Result No. 1. 7179/Mum/2017 2006-07 Assessee 2. 7180/Mum/2017 2007-08 Appeals are 3. 7181/Mum/2017 2006-07 Allowed 4. 7182/Mum/2017 2007-08 Shri Sunil Chimanlal 5. 7183/Mum/2017 2012-13 Gandhi 6. 7222/Mum/2017 2006-07 7. 7223/Mum/2017 2007-08 8. 7224/Mum/2017 2008-09 9. 7225/Mum/2017 2009-10 10. 7226/Mum/2017 2010-11 11. 7227/Mum/2017 2011-12 12. 7228/Mum/2017 2012-13

13. 7272/Mum/2017 2006-07 Revenue 14. 7273/Mum/2017 2007-08 Shri Nirav Sunil Gandhi Appeals are Dismissed 15 7236/Mum/2017 2006-07 Assessee 16 7237/Mum/2017 2007-08 Appeals are 17 7238/Mum/2017 2008-09 Shri Nirav Sunil Gandhi Allowed 18 7239/Mum/2017 2009-10 19 7240/Mum/2017 2010-11 20 7241/Mum/2017 2011-12 21 7242/Mum/2017 2012-13 22 7274/Mum/2017 2006-07 Shri Pranav Sunil Revenue 23 7275/Mum/2017 2007-08 Gandhi Appeals are Dismissed

24. 7229/Mum/2017 2006-07 Assessee 25. 7230/Mum/2017 2007-08 Appeals are 26. 7231/Mum/2017 2008-09 Shri Pranav Sunil Allowed 27. 7232/Mum/2017 2009-10 Gandhi 28. 7233/Mum/2017 2010-11 29. 7234/Mum/2017 2011-12 30. 7235/Mum/2017 2012-13

Order pronounced on 21/06/2021 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.