The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Panchkula v. M/S Haryana State Co-Op Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M)Date of Decision : November 28, 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula....Appellant Vs. M/s Haryana State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present :Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counselfor the Revenue. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocatefor the Assessee. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 12076-C-II of 2008: Application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal iscondoned. Heard on merits. Main Appeal : 1.The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order dated12.03.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), Chandigarh passed in ITA No.342/Chandi/2006 for the Assessment Year1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :-“a)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT haserred in holding that the Assessing Officer has notrecorded reasons or satisfaction before initiatingpenalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) ? b)Whether on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT waserred in holding that the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) ofthe I. T. Act 1961 is not leviable ?” 2.The Assessee is a Co-operative Society and as an agent ofGovernment, procures agricultural commodities from the grain markets inHaryana. The Assessee filed return of NIL income. The Assessing Officerrejected the claim for exemption and made the assessment accordingly. TheAssessing Officer held that the produce marketed by the Assessee was notgrown by its members and thus, the Assessee was not entitled to exemption.The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty. The CIT (A) upheld thepenalty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the same holding that theAssessee had challenged the retrospective amendment and there was stay.There was no concealment. The Assessee had raised bona fide plea of non-leviability of the tax. 3.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. 4.Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that High Court hadnot granted stay, but had stayed only the recovery of arrears and thus, theassessee wrongly claimed exemption. 5.The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, recorded afinding that the assessee could not be held to be deliberately attempting toevade the tax. The assessee had not concealed anything. I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 6.We are unable to hold that finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. 7.No substantial question of law arises for consideration.8.The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)JUDGE November 28, 2008monika ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE