The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Durga Traders

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. C.M. No.2264-CII of 2011 in/andI.T.A. No.388 of 2004 Date of decision: 9.2.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Durga Traders. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. Mr. Avneesh Jhingan, Advocatefor the respondent. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. On joint request, hearing is preponed for today. Heard on merits. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,Chandigarh in I.T.A. No.120/Chandi/2003 for the assessmentyear 1991-92 proposing to raise following substantial questions oflaw:- “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in cancelling the penaltylevied under Section 271(1)(c) by applying the ratio inthe case of Munish Iron Store, 263 ITR 484, whenthere existed satisfaction of the Assessing Officer withregard to the concealment of income on account of under valuation of closing stock of the rice in theassessment order itself when he initiated penaltyproceedings u/s 271(1)(c).” It is not disputed that the matter is covered by order of this Court inCITv. Pearey Lal and Sons (EP) Ltd.[2009] 308ITR 438, wherein it was held that a formal order of satisfactionwas not required to be recorded, as held by the Tribunal in theimpugned order. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of theTribunal and remand the matter to it for a fresh decision on meritsin accordance with law. Parties may appear before the Tribunal for furtherproceedings on 18.4.2011. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE February 09, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE