Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar v. Sh.rohit Tandon

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 258 of 2015 (O&M)Decided on : 18.09.2018 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...... Appellant Versus Sh.Rohit Tandon Prop. M/s Prajna (India) Ltd. ...... Respondent 2. ITA No. 28 of 2016 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...... Appellant Versus Sh.Rohit Tandon Prop. M/s Prajna (India) Ltd. 3. ...... Respondent ITA No. 45 of 2016 (O&M) Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-I, Jalandhar ...... Appellant Versus Sh.Rohit Tandon Prop. M/s Prajna (India) Ltd. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN Present :Mr. Vivek Sethi, Senior Standing Counselfor the appellant-revenue. Mr.Rohit Sood, Advocate for the respondent. * * * AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. This order shall dispose of three appeals bearing ITA No.258 of2015 and ITA Nos. 28 & 45 of 2016. All these appeals have been filed bythe revenue against the order of the Tribunal deleting penalty under Section271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'). Since thefacts and the issues involved in the above said appeals are similar, hence,these are being disposed of by a common order. 2.The details of the assessment year and ITA numbers have been tabulated below :- 3.For sake of convenience, the facts are being narrated from ITA No. 258 of 2015. 4.The revenue has filed the present appeal under Section 260A ofthe Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (forbrevity, 'the Tribunal') passed in ITA No.55 (ASR) 2011 dated 05.03.2015. 5. As per the appellant, the following substantial questions of lawarises for consideration in the present appeal:- (i)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the appeal in favourof the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without discussing the merits of thecase?of the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 without discussing the merits of thecase? (ii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theHon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the appeal in favourof the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the AssessingOfficer clearly established the default of the assessee byobserving that the assessee had transferred its existingbusiness to the new concern with sole intention to claimexemption u/s 10B?Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the appeal in favourof the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the AssessingOfficer clearly established the default of the assessee byobserving that the assessee had transferred its existingbusiness to the new concern with sole intention to claimexemption u/s 10B? (iii)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case theHon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the appeal in favourof the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty u/s271(1)(c) has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(A)?Hon'ble ITAT is right in law in allowing the appeal in favourof the assessee and deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the penalty u/s271(1)(c) has rightly been confirmed by the CIT(A)? 6. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s Prajna (India) Ltd., Jalandhar. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and export ofmachine parts. During the assessment year 2006-07, the claim of exemptionmade by the petitioner under Section 10B of the Act was rejected by theAssessing Officer. Consequent of rejection of the claim, the penaltyproceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishinginaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was imposed vide order dated13.10.2009. 7. 6. The assessee is a proprietor of M/s Prajna (India) Ltd., Jalandhar. The assessee was engaged in the business of manufacture and export ofmachine parts. During the assessment year 2006-07, the claim of exemptionmade by the petitioner under Section 10B of the Act was rejected by theAssessing Officer. Consequent of rejection of the claim, the penaltyproceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishinginaccurate particulars of income. The penalty was imposed vide order dated13.10.2009. 7. Aggrieved of the penalty order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The appeal wasdismissed vide order dated 29.12.2010. Further, an appeal was filed beforethe Tribunal. The Tribunal set aside the disallowance of the deductionclaimed under Section 10B of the Act and also set aside the penalty. Hencethe present appeal. 8.The appeal filed by the revenue for the said assessment yearregarding the issue of disallowance of deduction, the matter has beenremanded back to the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh. In view ofthe remand of the quantum proceedings, the issue of penalty is also remandedback to the Assessing Officer to decide the same after deciding the issue ofclaim under Section 10B of the Act. 9.These appeals are disposed of accordingly. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE September 18, 2018anju (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/NoWhether reportable :Yes/No