Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Adarsh Kumar Goel, J

ITA No. 341 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 341 of 2010Date of Decision: 5.8.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Smt. Roshni Dev ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvash Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 341 and 342 of 2010 ascommon questions of law are involved. 2.ITA No. 341 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue underSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) againstorder dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Delhi Bench 'C' New Delhi in ITA No. 80/(Del)/08 for the assessmentyear 1999-2000 proposing to raise the following substantial questions oflaw:- “I.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the findings recorded by the Ld. II. CIT (A) as confirmed by the Ld. ITAT thatadditions made in the assessment order on thebasis of which penalty for concealment waslevied are deleted, there remains no basis at allto levy penalty, are perverse and contrary tothe evidence available on record as the penaltywas levied by the Assessing Officer on theamount stands finally confirmed as it wasconfirmed from the Authorized Representativeby the Assessing Officer/Addl. CIT RangeHead that no further appeal has been filed bythe assessee against the decision of AssessingOfficer regarding the interest on enhancedcompensation at Rs.31,83,202/- [SeeAnnexure - “x”, page 1 to 3]? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inconfirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) indeleting the penalty of Rs.9,45,701/- levied bythe Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 even though the penaltyis leviable on contravention of the provisions ofa civil statute like Income Tax Act and it issettled law that breach of a civil obligationattracts levy of penalty whether thecontravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not and in contradictionto the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of Union of India and others vs.Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others(2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC)? III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the ITAT was right in law inconfirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) indeleting the penalty of Rs.9,45,701/- levied bythe Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 in view of judgment ofApex Court as the entire controversy on theyear of taxability of enhanced compensationand interest thereon has now come to rest withthe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthe case of Commissioner of Income Tax,Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in(2009) 315 ITR 1 wherein it has held that theyear in which enhanced compensation isreceived is the year of taxability?” 3.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4.It is not disputed that we have considered the issue in ourrecent order dated 15.7.2010 in ITA No. 16 of 2010 [TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Fateh Singh (HUF)] anddecided the matter against the revenue. 5.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 341 of 2010 -4- 6.A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 05, 2010gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE