Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bathinda v. M/S Tehal Singh Khara & Sons

ITA No. 316 of 2017}1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 316 of 2017 (O&M)Date of decision: 10.5.2018 Principal Commissioner of Income-tax, Bathinda .. Appellant V. M/s Tehal Singh Khara & Sons .. Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEKPAK SIBA Present:Mr. Denesh Goyal, Advocate for the appellant. Rajesh Bindalyo The Revenue is in appeal against the order dated 25.7.2016passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar(for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in ITA No. 181 (Asr)/2016 by raising thefollowing substantial questions of law: “)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in deleting thepenalty imposed u/s 271E by adopting reasoning thatwould negate the provisions of the stature and rendersection 269T of the I.T. Act a nullity?in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in deleting thepenalty imposed u/s 271E by adopting reasoning thatwould negate the provisions of the stature and rendersection 269T of the I.T. Act a nullity? (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in applying of theprovisions of section 273B in a manner that wouldin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in applying of theprovisions of section 273B in a manner that would ITA No. 316 of 2017A override the provisions of section 269T of the Act andviolate the doctrine of harmonious construction 2violate the doctrine of harmonious construction 2 (11)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in holding thatexclusion from the riguors of section 269T of the Actcould be provided, if at all, in case of only bonafidetransactions and circumstances that would have to beestablished in each case and no such circumstances wereestablished in the instant case?in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in holding thatexclusion from the riguors of section 269T of the Actcould be provided, if at all, in case of only bonafidetransactions and circumstances that would have to beestablished in each case and no such circumstances wereestablished in the instant case? (iv)Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case andin law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in not taking intoconsideration the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court in the case of M/s Charan Dass AshokKumar Vs. CIT, 3605 ITR 367 and in the case of AutPiston Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., Vs CIT, 355 ITR 414 whereinit was held that Hon'ble Court, under similarcircumstances that where respondent failed to establishthat there was reasonable cause in repayment loan incash, the action of the AO imposing penalty u/s 271Ewas justified and in failing to appreciate that the ratio ofthese judgments applied to the instant case?”in law, the Hon'ble ITAT was in error in not taking intoconsideration the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab & HaryanaHigh Court in the case of M/s Charan Dass AshokKumar Vs. CIT, 3605 ITR 367 and in the case of AutPiston Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., Vs CIT, 355 ITR 414 whereinit was held that Hon'ble Court, under similarcircumstances that where respondent failed to establishthat there was reasonable cause in repayment loan incash, the action of the AO imposing penalty u/s 271Ewas justified and in failing to appreciate that the ratio ofthese judgments applied to the instant case?” Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, two appeals were decided. ITANo. 248 of 201/7Principal Commissioner of Income=Tax, Bathinda v. M/s Tehal Singh Khara & Sonsfiled by the Revenue in ITA No. 180/Asr/2016,which was the other appeal has already been dismissed by this court vide ITA No. 316 of 2017}3] order dated 17.77.2017 For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid order,nothing survives in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed,Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in re-filing theappeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal)Judge Learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, two appeals were decided. ITANo. 248 of 201/7Principal Commissioner of Income=Tax, Bathinda v. M/s Tehal Singh Khara & Sonsfiled by the Revenue in ITA No. 180/Asr/2016,which was the other appeal has already been dismissed by this court vide ITA No. 316 of 2017}3] order dated 17.77.2017 For the detailed reasons recorded in the aforesaid order,nothing survives in the present appeal. The same is, accordingly, dismissed,Consequently, the application for condonation of delay in re-filing theappeal is also dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal)Judge (Deepak Sibal)10.5.2018.Judge|<FWhether speaking/reasoned:Yes/NoWhether reportable:Yes/No