The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Chandigarh-Ii v. Sh. Ravinder Pal, H

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.530 of 2007Date of decision: 18.2.2008 The Commissioner of Income tax,Chandigarh-II Versus ......Appellant Sh. Ravinder Pal, H.No.260,Sector 33-A, Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTALHON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present:Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1.The present appeal has been filed by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the'Act') against the order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Income TaxAppellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A in ITA No.194/Chandi/2006raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied,when the quantum of income assessed, which forms thebasis for levy of the penalty, has not attained its finality?” 2.The assessment of the assessee for the assessment year1995-96 was completed on 27.3.1998 and additions were made by theAssessing Officer. While completing the assessment, penalty proceedingsunder Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 were initiated. On the request ofthe assessee, these penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Chandigarh. The appeal was decided by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, vide his order dated 2.3.2001 andadditions of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in theconstruction of M/s RPS Hotel and of Rs.10,00,000/- on account ofunexplained cash found at the residence of the assessee during searchwere deleted. However, the other additions made by the Assessing Officerwere confirmed. 3.The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chandigarh onlyon one issue i.e. the relief allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of the additionof Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash. The Tribunal vide itsorder dated 6.10.2004 dismissed the appeal of the revenue and confirmedthe order of the CIT(A). 4.The Department further filed an appeal under Section 260-A ofthe Act against the order of the ITAT in quantum appeal before this Court. 5.The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1),Chandigarh vide his order dated 28.4.2005 imposed penalty under Section271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee. The appeal filed by the assesseeagainst the order of penalty was dismissed by the Commissioner ofIncome Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 3.2.2006.However, the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.4.2007 allowed the appealfiled by the assessee and quashed the penalty order. Hence, this appealby the revenue against the said order of ITAT. 6.We have heard Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate learnedcounsel for the revenue and perused the record. 7. At the very outset, Mr. Garg has brought to our knowledgethat the present appeal filed by the revenue does not survive as thequantum appeal filed by the revenue against the asssessee has alreadybeen dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2007. 8.In view of this, the present appeal fails as no substantialquestion of law would arise for determination of this Court. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE February 18, 2008ps (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE