Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shimla v. M/S Super Lpg Appliances

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA ITA No. 62 of 2017 Date of decision: 11.04.2019 ________________________________________________________ Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla Versus M/s Super LPG Appliances …..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. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondent M/s Abhishek Raj and Gaurav Sharma, Advocates. Surya Kant, Chief Justice (Oral) The instant Income Tax Appeal raises the following substantial questions of law: “(i) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT is right in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) wherein the penalty of Rs. 3,59,79,260/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars has been quashed? the order of CIT(A) wherein the penalty of Rs. 3,59,79,260/- imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars has been quashed? the order of CIT(A) wherein the penalty of (ii) Whether the Hon’ble ITAT was justified in law in upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed u/S 271 (1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in this case, even though, the quantum of the addition made on this account has already been confirmed upto the levelof the Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT?” upholding the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty imposed u/S 271 (1) (c ) of the I.T. Act, 1961 in this case, even though, the quantum of the addition made on this account has already been confirmed upto the levelof the Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT?” 1Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. 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. 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.