Commissioner Of Income Tax v. N.k. Singla

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. N.K. Singla. I.T.A. No.478 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.11.2010 -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present:-Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order dated 28.8.2009 of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.713/Del/09 for the assessmentyear 1998-99 proposing to raise following substantial questions oflaw:- I.“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deletingthe penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- levied by theAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 even though the penalty waslevied in respect of additions which wereconfirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld.ITAT itself?” of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deletingthe penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- levied by theAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 even though the penalty waslevied in respect of additions which wereconfirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld.ITAT itself?” II. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deletingthe penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- levied by theAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assesseehad the bona fide belief as to the taxability ofof the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law inupholding the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in deletingthe penalty of Rs.16,00,000/- levied by theAssessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961 on the ground that the assesseehad the bona fide belief as to the taxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereondisregarding the fact that breach of a civilobligation attracts levy of penalty whether thecontraventions was made by the defaulter withany guilty intention or not as willful concealmentis not an essential ingredient for attracting civilliability as in the matter of prosecution u/s 276Cas held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in thecase of Union of India & others vs DharmendraTextile Processors & others reported in 306 ITR277 (SC)?” Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by order of this Co[urtdated 15.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.16 of 2010CITv. Fateh Sigh (HUF).Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 01, 2010ashwani (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE