IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.449 of 2008 Date of decision: 14.10.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. Sh. Karamvir Vashisht. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Advocate for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order dated 5.10.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in I.T.A. No.3294/Del/2006 for the assessment year 2001-02 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “a. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in holding that the view of assessee regarding non taxability of enhanced compensation was bonafide particularly in view of provisions of section 45(5) of Income Tax Act? b. That the Hon’ble ITAT erred in deciding that proving contumacious intent is an essential ingredient in levy of penalty in contravention of the provisions of a Civil I.T.A. No.449 of 2008 Statute like Income Tax Act in spite of there being so many judgments that breach of a Civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not?” c. That the order of the Hon’ble ITAT is in contravention of the many judicial pronouncements including Thirupathy Kumar Khemka Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 210 CTR 287 (Mad)?” Learned counsel for the revenue is unable to dispute that identical matter being I.T.A. No.16 of 2010 CIT v. Fateh Singh (HUF) has been decided on 15.7.2010 by this Court against the revenue. In view of above, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE October 14, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2