The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Amritsar v. M/S Navdeep Theatre (P) Ltd. Amritsar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.03.2013 ITC No. 100 of 1999 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Amritsar ...Petitioner versus M/s Navdeep Theatre (P) Ltd. Amritsar ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTAHON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present:- Mr. Rajesh Katoch, Advocatefor the petitioner. M/s Akshay Bhan and Alok Mittal, Advocates, for the respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present petition under Section 256(2) of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short 'the Act') arises out of an order of the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar (for short 'the Tribunal')dated 25.08.1998 claiming the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding: (a) that the provisions of the Explanation to Section 271 (1)(c) will not be attracted to the present case? (b) that the word 'income' occurring in clauses (c) and (iii) of Section 271 refers to a positive income only andnot to a loss? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in cancelling the penalty ofRs.85,129/- imposed by the Assistant Commissioner ofIncome-Tax by holding that no penalty could be levied againstthe assessee?” Learned Tribunal has declined the petition filed by the Revenueunder Section 256(1) of the Act, in view of the judgment of this Court inthe case of CIT vs. Prithpal Singh and Co. (1990) 183 ITR 69. Theargument raised before the Tribunal was that special leave petition againstthe order of this Court is pending consideration before Hon'ble theSupreme Court. Learned counsel for the assessee has pointed out that the saidappeal has been dismissed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court by judgmentreported as CIT vs. Prithpal Singh and Co (2001) 249 ITR 670.Thus, the judgment of this Court stands affirmed by Hon'ble the SupremeCourt. We find that the penalty under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act,cannot be imposed for the reason that even after addition, the Income TaxReturn was that of a loss. Consequently, we do not find that any substantial question oflaw arises in the present petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE