The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jalandhar-Ii,Jalandhar v. Order

I.T.A. No. 180 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 180 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 23.09.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar-II,Jalandhar ..........Appellant Versus Smt. Parmatma Kaur, Village Langia Goraya, ..........RespondentDistrict, Jalandhar. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:-Mr. Vivek Sethi, Advocatefor the appellant.for the appellant. None for the respondent. **** Order 1.The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar dated 16.9.2008 passedin M.A. No. 64 for the assessment year 2002-03, proposing to raisefollowing substantial questions of law:- (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the ITAT is right in law in holding that the orderpassed by the Tribunal before insertion of Section 271(1B) to the status by Finance Bill 2008 cannot be saidto be erroneous and the amended provisions ofsection 271(1B) are not applicable in the casesdecided prior to insertion of this amendment.case the ITAT is right in law in holding that the orderpassed by the Tribunal before insertion of Section 271(1B) to the status by Finance Bill 2008 cannot be saidto be erroneous and the amended provisions ofsection 271(1B) are not applicable in the casesdecided prior to insertion of this amendment. (ii)Whether the Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law inignoring the ratio of the judgment of the jurisdictionalPunjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/sNakodar Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., ITA No. 441 of 2007.ignoring the ratio of the judgment of the jurisdictionalPunjab and Haryana High Court in the case of M/sNakodar Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd., ITA No. 441 of 2007. 2.The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings underSection 271(1)(c) for concealing the particulars of income and afterconsidering the matter, order of levy of penalty was passed. The saidorder was set aside by the CIT(A) following the decision of this Court in CITVs. Munish Iron Store (2003) 263 ITR 484. The Tribunal upheld the saidorder. The revenue inter alia relied upon amendment incorporating Section271(1B) inserted by Finance Act, 2008 w.e.f. 1.4.1989. 3.Notice was issued in view of earlier judgment of this Court inCommissioner of Income-tax Vs. Pearey Lal and Sons (EP) Ltd.(2009)308 ITR 438. In spite of service, none appears for the assessee. 4.We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 5.In Pearey Lal and Sons (supra), earlier observations inMunish Iron Store (supra) were duly explained and after referring tofurther developments in various judgments, it was held that whethersatisfaction existed and was not recorded during assessment was not amatter of form but of substance and absence of satisfaction could not beinferred from omission to use particular words in the order of assessment.The same could be inferred from over all findings in the order of theassessment. Accordingly, the Tribunal was directed to take fresh decisionon the issue of penalty. Present appeal is covered by the said judgment. 6.In view of above, this appeal is allowed and the matter isremitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the issue of penalty, inaccordance with law. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 23, 2009pooja (DAYA CHAUDHARY)JUDGE Note:-Whether this case is to be referred to the Reporter .......Yes/No