Appell v. M/S Amritsar Improvement Trust, C-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar(

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY AW Achdor4n.4,2018.08.27 10:44 CHANDIGARH. ITA No. 73 of 2018Date of decision: 09.07.2018. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh. .--.--Appell Vs. M/s Amritsar Improvement Trust, C-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar|(PAN ) ..--Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL,HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present: Mr. Denesh Goyal Senior Standing Counsel forthe appellant- revenue. _ Advocate for respondent-assessee Mr. Rishabh Kapoor Advocate and Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Ajay Kumar Mittal,J. 1)This order shall dispose of ITA Nos. 73 and 81 of 2018 as|according to the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, the issues|involved in both the appeals are identical. However, the facts are being|extracted from ITA No. 73 of 2018. |ITA No. 73 of 2018 has been preferred by the appellant-revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the|Act’) against the order dated 11.08.2017, Annexure A.4, passed by the|Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, (in short, “the Tribunal’)in L.T.A. No.656/ASR/2015 for the assessment year 2005-06, claiming|following substantial questions of law:-. 1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case in law,the Hon’ble ITAT is right in upholding the decision of learned|CIT(A) in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the|Act, as the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars ofincome which was detected by the Assessing Officer during|the course of assessment proceedings? 11) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case|and in law, the Hon’ble ITAT is correct in deleting the penalty|on the basis of deletion of quantum addition particularly whenthe revenue has filed SLP against the decision of the Hon’ble|High Court on the issue of quantum addition which is pendingbefore the Apex Court?” 3 3 A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy|involved as narrated in ITA No. 73 of 2018 may be noticed.Therespondent-assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2005 declaring lossofzy261.67 lacs. The case was assessed under Section 143(3) of the Act on25.06.2008 at a total income of.zy99,11,57,589/-. While making theassessment, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption under Section|11(1) of the Act by treating the activities of the assessee trust as businessactivities. Vide order dated 25.06.2008, Annexure A.1, the Assessing|Officer also initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act|for furnishing inaccurate particulars of the income. Vide order dated|29.08.2014, Annexure A.2, the Assessing Officer imposed penalty|amounting tozy30,34,89,496/-. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee filedan appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) |[CIT(A)].Vide order dated 08.09.2015, Annexure A.3, the CIT(A) allowed the appealfiled by the assessee and deleted the penalty by setting aside the orders|passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order, the|appellant-revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. Vide order dated| 11.08.2017, Annexure A.4, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Hence the| instant appeals by the appellant-revenue. 3 We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4It 1s not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that thisCourt has already dismissed the quantum appeal 1n the case of the assesseefiled by the revenue being ITA No. 76 of 2016)(The Commissioner of. Income Tax (Exemptions), Chandigarh Vs. M/s Amritsar [ImprovementTrust, Amritsar)vide order dated 23.12.2016. Consequently, no ground for|levy of penalty has been made out. As a result, both the appeals are|dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge July 09, 2018|Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable (Avneesh Jhingan) JudgeYes/No |Yes/No}