Shri Harinder v. Ajay Kumar Mittal, J

ITA-362-2018 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA-362-2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: 14.3.2019 The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Ludhiana Shri Harinder Versus ....Appellant. ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL. PRESENT: Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Sr. Standing Counsel for the appellant. *** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1.This order shall dispose of two appeals bearing ITA Nos.362and 385 of 2018 as according to learned counsel for the revenue, similarissue is involved therein. For brevity, the facts are being extracted fromITA-362-2018. 2.ITA-362-2018 has been preferred by the revenue under Section260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against the orderdated 13.12.2017 (Annexure A-VI) passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as “theTribunal”) in ITA No. 1092/CHD/2017, for the assessment year 2006-07,claiming the following substantial question:- Whether upon the facts and in the circumstances of the ITA-362-2018 -2- case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was right in deleting penaltyof ` 31,76,819/- of AY 2006-07 without appreciating thefacts? 3.A few essential facts in ITA-362-2018 as narrated therein maybe noticed. The assessee had filed his return of income for the assessmentyear 2006-07 declaring the income at ` 95,750/-. The assessee hadpurchased land in partnership with Shri Suresh Kumar and Shri SahibjitSingh, Directors of M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. during the assessmentyear 2006-07 vide agreement dated 5.10.2005 for the development of aresidential colony. In the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee had paid asum of ` 93,63,000/-. The Assessing Officer framed the assessment underSection 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.3.2013 (Annexure A-I)making addition of ` 93,63,000/- along with ` 55,000/- (for not maintainingbooks of account) on account of undisclosed income under Section 69 of theAct on account of investment in purchase of land in partnership with ShriSuresh Kumar Khanna and Shri Sahibjit Singh, both Directors of M/sBasera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appealbefore the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short “the CIT(A)”].The CIT(A) vide order dated 24.2.2014 (Annexure A-II) dismissed the saidappeal. Consequentially, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.3.2015(Annexure A-III) levied penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act @ 100%of the tax sought to be evaded, i.e. ` 31,76,819/- for the assessment year2006-07. Against the quantum order, Annexure A-II, the assessee filedappeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide order dated 18.12.2015(Annexure A-V) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition made by theAssessing Officer and upheld by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained ITA-362-2018 investments in the purchase of land. The income was held to be taxable inthe hands of the Company-M/s Basera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. instead of theasessee. The assessee assailed the penalty order dated 30.03.2015 by filingan appeal on 27.4.2015 before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) vide order dated13.4.2017 (Annexure A-IV) quashed the penalty as the addition made in theincome of the assessee was held to be belonging to the Company-M/sBasera Realtors Pvt. Ltd. and the Tribunal had deleted the addition in thecase of the assessee vide order dated 18.12.2015 (Annexure A-V). Therevenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal against the order dated13.4.2017 (Annexure A-IV) deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) ofthe Act. The Tribunal vide order dated 13.12.2017 (Annexure A-VI) upheldthe order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the presentappeals by the revenue. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue.5.The CIT(A) had deleted the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act amounting to ` 31,76,819/- for the assessment year 2006-07 and ` 1,45,18,829/- for the assessment year 2008-09 as the Tribunal haddeleted the entire addition on the basis of which the said penalties werelevied. The said order of the CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal byobserving that once the additions stand deleted, the appeal of the revenuehas no merit and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Further, once thequantum additions have been deleted by the Tribunal vide order dated18.12.2015 (Annexure A-V) and the same having been upheld by this Courtvide orders dated 10.5.2018 passed in ITA Nos. 163 and 186 of 2016, nocase for penalty is made out. ITA-362-2018 counsel for the revenue in the findings recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmedby the Tribunal which may warrant interference by this Court. No questionof law arises in this appeal. Consequently, finding no merit in the appeals,the same are hereby dismissed.