Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Hycron Electronics

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ITA No. 38 of 2016 Date of decision: 11.04.2019 ________________________________________________________ Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s Hycron Electronics …..Petitioner …Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?[1] _________________________________________________ For the Appellant :Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. C.N. Singh, Advocate. Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral) The instant Income Tax Appeal has been admitted to answer the following substantial question of law: “(i) Whether on the basis of the facts and circumstances, the ITAT was right in law to delete penalty u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that the levy of the penalty in the case is squarely covered by the decision of CIT vs. Escort Finance Ltd. (Del.) 328 ITR 44.” circumstances, the ITAT was right in law to delete penalty u/s 271(1) ( c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in spite of the fact that the levy of the penalty in the case is squarely covered by the decision of CIT vs. Escort Finance Ltd. (Del.) 328 ITR 44.” 2. It may be seen from the above reproduced question that the issue sought to be raised pertains to the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 3. 3. It is an undisputed fact that the matter re: very quantum of tax liability stands decided in favour of the respondent-assessee by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the lead case in Civil Appeal No. 1784 of 2019, titled as Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla versus M/s Aarham Softronicsand other connected matters, decided on 20[th] February, 2019. 4. As a necessary corollary, the deletion of penalty by the ITAT would be fully justified and would leave no scope to raise any substantial question of law in this appeal. The same is accordingly disposed of. (Surya Kant) Chief Justice. April 11, 2019 (hemlata) (Sandeep Sharma) Judge.