Ita/24/2002 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-I,Ldh v. M/S National Picture Corp Society Cinema

IN THE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 24 of 2002 (O&M) Date of Decision: 29.03.2016 Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana ....... Appellant *!+$,$ M/s National Picture Corporation, Society Cinema, Ludhiana ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICK RAJESH BINDAL,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARINDER SINGH SIDHU Present:Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the appellant. RAJESH BINDAL,J. This appeal has been filed under Section 260 A of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act’), against the order dated8.6.2001 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ChandigarhBench (SMC), in ITA Nos.501/Chandi/91 and 369/Chandi/94, torthe assessment year 1983-84, raising the following substantialquestions of law: (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances otthe case, the Hon'ble Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in law in holding that evidenceon record is not sufficient for the levy of penalty u/s27 (1) Cc)? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances otthe case, the Hon'ble Income Tax AppellateTribunal was right in law in holding that both the ITA No. 24 of 2002 (O&M) -)| penalties levied by the Assessing Officer as well asthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) are notsustainable because the Assessing Officer hasomitted to record satisfaction in words that theassessee has concealed the income/furnisheinaccurate particulars of income in the assessmentorder? (3) Whether in view of the entirety of the facts andcircumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Income TaxAppellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting thepenalty u/s 271 (1) (c )? Learned counsel for the appellant-revenue submitted that in view of circular No21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 read with circularNo.279/Misc/M-142/2007-ITJ (Part) dated 8.3.2016, issued by CentralBoard of Direct Taxes, he does not wish to press the present appeal, asthe tax effect involved is less than ©|20 lacs. However, he prays thatliberty be granted to the revenue to file an application for revival of theappeal in case something survives therein, Dismissed as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. It ishowever, clarified that withdrawal of the appeal by the revenue shallnot be taken as affirmation of order of the Tribunal on merits. Thelegal issue as claimed by the revenue is left open to be adjudicated inan appropriate case, (RAJESH BINDAL)JUDGE (HARINDER SINGH SIDHU)JUDGE