Ita/150/2016 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax -2 Chandigarh v. M/S Jct Electronics Ltd Mohali

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDI GARH --I TA 150 2016 ( O&M)-Dat e of deci si on: 12. 07. 2016 The Pr . Commi ssi oner of I ncome Tax- 2, Chandi gar h . . . Appel l antVer sus M/ s JCT El ect r oni cs Lt d. , Mohal i . . . . Respondent CORAM: HON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE S. J. VAZI FDAR, ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CEHON’ BLE MR. JUSTI CE DEEPAK SI BAL Pr esent : -Ms. Ur vashi Dhugga, Advocat e,f or t he appel l ant .* * * * S. J. VAZI FDAR, A. C. J. ( ORAL) Thi s i s an appeal agai nst t he or der of t he Tr i bunaldi smi ssi ng t he depar t ment ’ s appeal agai nst t he or der of t heCI T ( Appeal s) set t i ng asi de t he penal t y i mposed upon t her espondent / assessee.The appeal per t ai ns t o t heassessment year 2008- 2009.2.The assessee had sought exempt i on f r om payment ofFr i nge Benef i tTax under Sect i on 115 WE ( 3) of t he I ncome TaxAct , 1961 ( i n shor t t he Act ) on sever al gr ounds. The r espondenthad made a r ef er ence under Sect i on 15 of t he Si ck I ndust r i alCompani es ( Speci al Pr ovi si ons) Act , 1985 ( i n shor tSI CA) . TheBoar d f or I ndust r i al and Fi nanci al Reconst r uct i on( i n shor tBI FR) had di r ect ed t he depar t ment t o consi der t hecl ai m f or exempt i on f r om t he pr ovi si ons of Sect i on 115 JB oft he Act and f r om Fr i nge Benef i tTax as wel l as f r om capi t algai ns t ax on t he sal e of cer t ai n asset s dur i ng t he per i od ofr ehabi l i t at i on. The r espondent ’ s cl ai m f or exempt i on was notAMODH SHARMA2016.07.14 15:08I attest to the accuracy andal l owed by t he depar t ment .I n t he quant um pr oceedi ngs, t heauthenticity of this documentchandigarh appel l ant succeeded. The CI T ( Appeal s) and t he Tr i bunal ,however , t ook t he vi ew t hat i n t he f act s and ci r cumst ances oft he case, penal t y ought not t o be l evi ed. 3.We ar e unabl e t o hol d t hat t he exer ci se of di scr et i oni s absur d or per ver se.The i ssue r egar di ng exempt i on was t hesubj ect mat t er of t he pr oceedi ngs bef or e t he BI FR. The BI FRr ecommended t hat t he depar t ment ought t o gr ant t he exempt i on.Ther e was, t her ef or e, no conceal ment of any mat er i alpar t i cul ar s on t he par t of t he assessee. That t he assessee l oston a quest i on of l aw i s not t he onl y consi der at i on f or t hei mposi t i on of penal t y.4.I n t hese ci r cumst ances, t he appeal i s di smi ssed. ( S. J. VAZI FDAR)ACTI NG CHI EF JUSTI CE 12. 07. 2016Amodh ( DEEPAK SI BAL)JUDGE