CIT, FARIDABAD V. ROSHNI DEVI NEW DELHI

ITA/341/2010

AI Insights

The case involves the Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad as the appellant and Smt. Roshni Dev as the respondent. The appellant challenged the decision of the ITAT which had confirmed the deletion of a penalty of Rs.9,45,701 levied on the respondent for concealment of income under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty was initially imposed by the Assessing Officer based on additions made in the assessment order concerning enhanced compensation. However, these additions were later deleted by the CIT (A) and ITAT, leading to the appeal by the Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the appeal, referencing a similar decision in a related case and affirming the ITAT's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 689643 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Union of India and others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others, Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASH DHUGGA
• Keywords: Enhanced compensation; Penalty for concealment; Taxability of enhanced compensation
• Section: 271(1)(c); 260A

Judgement Text

"ITA No. 341 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 341 of 2010 Date of Decision: 5.8.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ....Appellant. Versus Smt. Roshni Dev ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Ms. Urvash Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 341 and 342 of 2010 as common questions of law are involved. 2. ITA No. 341 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) against order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'C' New Delhi in ITA No. 80/(Del)/08 for the assessment year 1999-2000 proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:- “I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Ld. ITA No. 341 of 2010 -2- CIT (A) as confirmed by the Ld. ITAT that additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied are deleted, there remains no basis at all to levy penalty, are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record as the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on the amount stands finally confirmed as it was confirmed from the Authorized Representative by the Assessing Officer/Addl. CIT Range Head that no further appeal has been filed by the assessee against the decision of Assessing Officer regarding the interest on enhanced compensation at Rs.31,83,202/- [See Annexure - “x”, page 1 to 3]? II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.9,45,701/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the penalty is leviable on contravention of the provisions of a civil statute like Income Tax Act and it is settled law that breach of a civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with ITA No. 341 of 2010 -3- any guilty intention or not and in contradiction to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dharmendra Textiles Processors and others (2008) 306 ITR 277 (SC)? III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of Rs.9,45,701/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of judgment of Apex Court as the entire controversy on the year of taxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereon has now come to rest with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad vs. Ghanshyam (HUF) reported in (2009) 315 ITR 1 wherein it has held that the year in which enhanced compensation is received is the year of taxability?” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. It is not disputed that we have considered the issue in our recent order dated 15.7.2010 in ITA No. 16 of 2010 [The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Fateh Singh (HUF)] and decided the matter against the revenue. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. ITA No. 341 of 2010 -4- 6. A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 05, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE "