The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I,Ludhiana v. Shri Parveen Sood

I.T.A. No. 574 of 2008. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 574 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 27, 2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I,Ludhiana. Versus ---Appellant Shri Parveen Sood Prop.--RespondentM/s East West Indl. Exports CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present:Mr. Rajesh Sethi,Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue. *** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.J (ORAL) The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260 A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' passed in I.T.A. No.67/CHANDI/2007dated 19.9.2007 for the Assessment Year 2003-04, proposing followingsubstantial question of law for consideration:- “ Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.11,84,236/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the amendments made by Taxation Laws (Amendment Act No.55 of 2005?” During the assessment, the A.O. disallowed deduction underSection 80 HHC on negative profit and initiated penalty proceedings. Thiswas followed by order of penalty, which was upheld by the CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that even though theassessee may not be entitled to deduction u/s 80 HHC, there was nothing I.T.A. No. 574 of 2008. to show that the claim of the assessee was not bonafide or that the assesseehad furnished inaccurate particulars. In absence of concealment orfurnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty was not justified. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that even after noticeunder Section 148 was issued and the assessee was asked to file fresh returnthe assessee reiterated the return that had already been filed. Learned counsel submitted that amendment introduced vide ActNo. 55 of 2005 has been ignored by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by thelearned counsel. Mere fact that the assessee reiterated his stand is not enough toshow that stand of the assessee was not bonafide. There is nothing to showthat the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not furnish anyincorrect particulars and his claim was bonafide is perverse. The amendmentvide Act No.55 of 2005 does not relate to penalty but to the liability of theassessee to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC, which is not the issue. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law in thisappeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE