M. SUNDAR, J.

1. This is a Tax Case Appeal assailing an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal "B" Bench, Chennai. The facts that are essential for appreciating our order are set out infra under the caption Factual Matrix.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. (a) The Assessee in the instant case is a Cine artist and she is also into modeling. Assessee is the sole respondent in this Tax Case Appeal (hereinafter referred to as ‘TCA’ for brevity) before us. The sole respondent shall be referred to as Assessee for the sake of convenience and clarity. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central 2 is the appellant in this TCA and the appellant shall be referred to as Revenue also for the sake of convenience and clarity. The assessment year which is subject matter of this TCA is 2010-2011 (hereinafter referred to as the said assessment year for the sake of clarity and convenience).

2. (b) The Assessee, who is an individual filed her return of income for the said assessment year on 25.9.2010, declaring an income of Rs. 89,69,894/-. Subsequently, the Assessee filed a revised return on 30.03.2012 admitting a total income of Rs. 4,41,40,950/-. As is evident from the numbers, the difference between the income originally declared on 25.9.2010 and the total income admitted in the revised return filed on 30.03.2012 is Rs. 3,51,71,053/-. It is not in dispute before us that this entire differential sum is the advance received by the Assessee in the said assessment year from various cinema producers towards the work to be done by her. In the original return filed, the advances received by the assessee had not been shown as income in the said assessment year, though the same have been set out in the balance sheet filed by her with the Revenue. This advance not being shown as income in the same assessment year issue is the first aspect of the matter.

2. (c) Thereafter an assessment order was made by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘AO’ for the sake of brevity) on 11.3.2013. In the assessment order, the AO has noticed that the Assessee had incurred expenses towards (a) Audit fees, (b) Commission and brokerage, (c) Professional charges and (d) security charges, for which Tax Deduction at Source (hereinafter referred to as ‘TDS’ for brevity) has been made, but no proof of remittance of the same into the Government account was produced. On this ground, as the proof for deduction of tax and remittance into the Central Government account with regard to the above said four heads of expenditure had not been produced, the AO disallowed and added to the total income the said sum Rs. 24,05,062/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as IT Act for the sake of brevity). This disallowance qua TDS is the second aspect of the matter.

2. (d) With regard to the above two aspects of the matter, namely, advances not shown as income in the said assessment year and the disallowance on account of no proof for deduction and remittance of TDS, penalty proceedings were initiated and the Revenue, by an order dated 24.9.2013, imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,16,11,020/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. This sum was arrived at by the Revenue by computing penalty at 100% of tax payable on what according to the Revenue is the concealed income. What the Revenue contends as concealed income is the sums involved in the two aspects of the matter alluded to supra.

2. (e) The above said order of penalty dated 24.9.2013 is the lone core issue in this case.

2. (f) The order of penalty, as aforestated, passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle II(5), Chennai, was carried in appeal by the Assessee. The appeal was before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT’ for brevity), bearing ITA No. 775/15-16. The CIT, after scrutinizing the documents in a full fledged hearing, allowed the appeal holding on facts that there is no concealment of income and the instant case does not attract