Commissioner Of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim

ITA No. 50 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Munim ITA No. 50 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the respondent,in ITA Nos. 50, 222 and 249 of 2008. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 50, 222, 249, 311 to313, 334, 336 and 379 of 2008 as it has been stated by learned counselfor the revenue that common questions of law are involved in theappeals. 2.ITA No.50 of 2008 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1941 against order dated18.4.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench“G”, Delhi (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No. 04(Del)2006, for theassessment year 1997-98, claiming following substantial questions oflaw:- “a.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in law in confirmingthe order of the Ld. CIT(A) who deleted the penaltieslevied by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) incontravention of the order of the Hon'ble MadrasHigh Court in the case of M. Sajjanraj Nahar Vs. CIT(283 ITR 230), is correct when the Assessing Officerhad recorded initiation of penalty proceedings u/s271(1)(c) in the assessment order? b. That the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deciding thatproviding contumacious intent is an essentialingredient in levy of penalty in contravention of theprovisions of a Civil Statute like Income Tax Act inspite of there being so many judgments that breachof a Civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whetherthe contravention was made by the defaulter with anyguilty intention or not? c. That the order of the Hon'ble ITAT is in contraventionof the many judicial pronouncements includingThirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs. Commissioner ofIncome Tax 210 CTR 287 (Mad)?” 3.The assessee received compensation under the provisionsof Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in view of acquisition of his land for publicpurpose. Enhanced compensation was subjected to tax as capital gainand in addition penalty was also levied. The CIT(A) set aside the levyof penalty holding that the assessee had not concealed the particularsof income but had only taken a bonafide plea that the disbursement of ITA No. 50 of 2008 enhanced compensation had not become final. The Tribunal upheld theview of the CIT(A). The Tribunal also observed that the AssessingOfficer had failed to record satisfaction for levy of penalty as requiredunder the law. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.Learned counsel for the revenue submits that satisfactionwas properly recorded and in this regard the contention of the revenueis supported by the view taken by this Court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. Pearay Lal and Sons, [2009] 308 ITR 438. However,she fairly states that the plea of the assessee being debatable as to theyear in which the income was to be taxed, the setting aside of penaltywas upheld in similar circumstances by this Court vide judgment dated15.7.2010 in ITA No. 16 of 2010 [The Commissioner of Income Tax,Faridabad v. Fateh Singh (HUF)]. 6.In view of the fact that setting aside of penalty has alreadybeen upheld in similar cases, referred to above, even if question (a)claimed by the revenue is to be answered in its favour, questions (b)and (c) have to be answered against the revenue and the appeals haveto be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Munim ITA No. 222 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. 6.In view of the fact that setting aside of penalty has alreadybeen upheld in similar cases, referred to above, even if question (a)claimed by the revenue is to be answered in its favour, questions (b)and (c) have to be answered against the revenue and the appeals haveto be dismissed. 7.Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -4- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Munim ITA No. 222 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -5- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Munim ITA No. 249 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Mukhi, Advocate with Ms. Jyoti, Advocate for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner ofIncome Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -6- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Trilok Singh ITA No. 311 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -7- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Trilok Singh ITA No. 312 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -8- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Trilok Singh ITA No. 313 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -9- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Satyavir Singh (HUF) ITA No. 334 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE ITA No. 50 of 2008 -9- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Satyavir Singh (HUF) ITA No. 334 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE -10- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Satyavir Singh (HUF) ITA No. 336 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE -11- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Versus Shri Satyavir Singh (HUF) ITA No. 379 of 2008 Date of Decision: 5.1.2011 ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. None for the respondent. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. For orders, see ITA No. 50 of 2008 (Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Munim). (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 5, 2011gbs (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE