Ita/93/2016 Of Pr Commissioner Of Income Tax 2 Chd v. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Dudan1

ITA No. 93 of 2016 IN THRE HIGH COURT OR PUNJAB AND HARYANA|WAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 93 of 2016 Date of Decision: 11.07.2018 The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Chandigarh ...... AppellantVersusSh. Ramesh Kumar Dudan1...... Respondent ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN. Present:Mrs. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing counselfor the appellant-revenue. Mrs. Radhika Suri, Senior Advocate withMr. Manpreet Singh Kanda, Advocatefor the respondent. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the RevenueAuthority under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘theAct’) against the order dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure A6) passed by theIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh(hereinafter refereed to as the Tribunal). The Tribunal upheld the order ofCIT(A) quashing penalty of Rs.25,24,868/- imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act relating to the assessment year 2009-10. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessmentproceedings for the assessment year 2009-10 power was exercised undersection 80IA(10) of the Act and certain expenses were reallocated betweentwo units of the respondent namely Theog unit and Mohali Unit. Thepenalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated. Themain contention of the assessee before the Assessing Officer was that theadditions were made on mere estimates and therefore, penalty was notleviable. The Assessing Officer did not find merit in the assessee's ITA No. 93 of 2016 submissions and imposed a minimum penalty of Rs.25,24,868/-. The saidpenalty was quashed by learned CIT(A) vide order dated 20.4.2015 againstwhich an appeal was filed by the Revenue before ITAT, Chandigarh. TheSame was dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2015 impugned herein, The appellant claims that the tollowing question of law arisefor consideration in the appeal: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was right in deletingthe penalty of Rs.25,24,868/- |(wrongly typed asRs.20,02,673/-) levied by the AO in respect of addition ofRs.58,91,946/- made on account of re-allocation ofbooking of expenses of exempt unit which the assesseehas claimed against non-exempt unit resulting in misuseof provisions of Section 80-IC of the Act read withsection SOIA(10)?2" We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thepaper book, Since the quantum appeals against the assessment orders havebeen remanded back to the Assessing Officer (A.O.) for decision afresh videseparate order of even date, accordingly. The impugned orders in the instantappeal are also set aside and the issue of penalty is also remitted back to theA.O. to pass fresh order after adjudicating the quantum proceedings inaccordance with law. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)JUDGE 11.07.2018 TeeMa (AVNEESH JHINGAN)JUDGE Whether speaking/reasonedWhether Reportable: Yes/NoYes/No