I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 1
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 Counsel
for the Revenue.
Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate
for the Assessee.
* * *
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) :
C. M. No. 12076-C-II of 2008 :
Application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is
condoned.
Heard on merits.
Main Appeal :
1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of
the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order dated
12.03.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B),
I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 2
Chandigarh passed in ITA No.342/Chandi/2006 for the Assessment Year
1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :-
“a) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT has
erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not
recorded reasons or satisfaction before initiating
penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) ?
b) Whether on the facts and in the
circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was
erred in holding that the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of
the I. T. Act 1961 is not leviable ?”
2. The Assessee is a Co-operative Society and as an agent of
Government, procures agricultural commodities from the grain markets in
Haryana. The Assessee filed return of NIL income. The Assessing Officer
rejected the claim for exemption and made the assessment accordingly. The
Assessing Officer held that the produce marketed by the Assessee was not
grown by its members and thus, the Assessee was not entitled to exemption.
The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty. The CIT (A) upheld the
penalty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the same holding that the
Assessee 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 the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that High Court had
not granted stay, but had stayed only the recovery of arrears and thus, the
assessee wrongly claimed exemption.
5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, recorded a
finding that the assessee could not be held to be deliberately attempting to
evade the tax. The assessee had not concealed anything.
I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 3
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, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika JUDGE