The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal v. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J

I.T.A. No. 524 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A. No. 524 of 2007 Date of decision: 28.04.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ..... Appellant-revenue Versus Smt. Raj Rani c/o M/s Shiv Shankar, Rice Mills, Kaithal ..... Respondent-assessee CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:-Mr. Sanjiv Kaushik, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. The revenue has filed the present appeal underSection 260-A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafterreferred to as the “I.T. Act” ) against the order dated05.04.2007 passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh, Bench-'B' ( hereinafter called the Tribunal ) inI.T.A. No. 593/Chandi/2006 for the assessment year 2004-05,raising the following substantial question of law:- I.T.A. No. 524 of 2007 “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. ITAT was right in upholding the order ofthe CIT(A), against imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without deliberatingupon, discussing and analysing the reasons, as spelt outand discussed in para 4 of the penalty order and relyingon the after thought considered by the Ld. CIT (A),while deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act.” The return declaring an income at Rs. NIL was filedby the assessee on 31.10.2004, which was processed underSection 143(1) of the I.T. Act. The case was picked up forscrutiny and it was found that the assessee had claimed profit onsale of shares, which was purchased by her on 06.09.2002, forexemption under Section 10(36) of the I.T. Act. The assessee wasasked to explain why she claimed profit exempted under Section10(36) of the IT Act when she had purchased shares before 1[st]March, 2003. In the reply filed by the assessee, it was stated thatshe was under the bona fide belief that profit on the sale of theseshares was exempt under Section 10(36) of the I.T. Act andnothing in this regard has been concealed by her and this bonafide belief was based on the advice of her counsel. However, the I.T.A. No. 524 of 2007 Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assesseeand held that a wrong claim was made by the assessee byfurnishing inaccurate particulars of her income as the profit onsale of shares was not exempt under Section 10(36) of the I.T.Act and separate penalty proceedings were initiated against theassessee. A penalty of Rs.4,12,545/- was imposed upon theassessee, under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, by AssistantCommissioner of Income-tax, Circle, Kurukshetra, vide orderdated 30.01.2006. Aggrieved against the said order, assessee filed anappeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals )Karnal, ( hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)' ),who vide its orderdated 24.05.2006, partly allowed the appeal and deleted thepenalty. Not feeling satisfied with the order of CIT(A), therevenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground thatthe assessee had wrongly claimed exemption under Section 10(36) of the I.T. Act as the said provisions were not applicable tothe facts of the assessee's case and therefore,she had concealedher income by furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, theassessee is liable for imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, vide itsorder dated 30.03.2007 dismissed the appeal of the revenue-department. Still dissatisfied with the order of Tribunal, therevenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and perused the record. Not feeling satisfied with the order of CIT(A), therevenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal on the ground thatthe assessee had wrongly claimed exemption under Section 10(36) of the I.T. Act as the said provisions were not applicable tothe facts of the assessee's case and therefore,she had concealedher income by furnishing inaccurate particulars and therefore, theassessee is liable for imposition of penalty. The Tribunal, vide itsorder dated 30.03.2007 dismissed the appeal of the revenue-department. Still dissatisfied with the order of Tribunal, therevenue has filed the present appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant-revenue and perused the record. At the very outset, Shri Sanjiv Kaushik, Advocate forthe revenue has very fairly stated that the facts of the instant caseare identical to the facts involved in the case of ITA No. 57 of2008, decided by this Court on 11.04.2008 and the issue indispute is covered by the said decision of this Court. Learnedcounsel for the revenue has further stated that while passing theimpugned order, the Tribunal had relied upon its decision in thecase of ACIT v. Amar Nath in ITA No. 592/Chandi/2006 for theassessment year 2004-05 ( ITA No. 57 of 2008 titled as TheCommissioner of Income Tax, Karnal v. Sh. Amar Nath ). In view of the above conceded position, no questionof law is arising for the determination of this Court in this appealand the same is hereby dismissed. ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG )JUDGE 28.04.2008dinesh ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )JUDGE