The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I Chandigar v. M/S. Chandigarh Zever Mehal Pvt. Ltd.shop

Income Tax Appeal No. 70 of 2010 Income Tax Appeal No. 71 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH -1- I.T.A. No. 70 of 2010Date of Decision: February 15, 2010 The Commissioner of Income tax-I Chandigar ----Appellant Versus M/s. Chandigarh Zever Mehal Pvt. Ltd.Shop No. 8-9, Sec. 20-C Chandigarh ---Respondent I.T.A. No. No. 71 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income tax-I Chandigar ----Appellant Versus M/s. Prince Zever Mehal Pvt. Ltd.Booth No. 47, Sec. 19-C Chandigarh ---Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMARHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocatefor the appellant. 1.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2.Whether the judgment should be reportedin the Digest? **** M.M. KUMAR, J. Revenue has approached this court challenging thecomposite order dated 24.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'A', Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') inITA Nos. 110 & 111/Chd/2009 in respect of the assessment year 2006-07.Therefore, both the appeals bearing I.T.A. Nos. 70 and 71 of 2010 are being disposed of jointly. The findings recorded by the CIT(A) in its order dated 28.11.2008as affirmed by the Tribunal in the impugned order are categorical thatpenalty of Rs. 22,64,168 and Rs. 17,46,606 has been rightly deletedbecause no benefit has been claimed by the assessee-respondent byvirtue of claimed bad debts. In para 4 it has been found that there wasno evidence on record that the claim of the assessee was not bona fideand there was no intention of evading tax by the assessee because theclaimed bad debts has not been set off against any income. Accordingly,it has been held that penalty is not leviable automatically becauseAssessing Officer is supposed to show inaccurate particulars of income orconcealment of two incomes by the assessee. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find that theseare concurrent findings of fact, which would not be open to interferenceof this Court. These findings of fact are necessarily based on evidenceand both the appeals do not warrant admission because no question oflaw much less a substantive question of law would arise for determinationof this Court. Accordingly, both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the record of connectedappeal. (M.M. KUMAR) Judge 15[th] February, 2010Atul (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) Judge