I.T.A No. 466 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH I.T.A No. 466 of 2007 Date of decision : September 25, 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad ...... Appellant. through Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counsel. v. Sh. Chandi Ram, ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order dated 18.1.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, proposing the following substantial questions of law :- “ 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in holding that the Assessing Officer had not recorded his satisfaction for initiating the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), even though the Assessing Officer had mentioned the same in the assessment order ? (2)(a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned ITAT is right in holding that the penalty I.T.A No. 466 of 2007 ::2:: has been levied on the assessee with the status as `individual' though the original assessment was made with the `HUF' status ? (2)(b) Without prejudice to 2(a) above, whether the learned ITAT is right in overlooking the fact that the status of the assessee was held as `individual' and not `HUF' by the learned CIT(A) and also by learned ITAT in the quantum appeal in this case of the assessee ? It is not disputed before us that the appeal of the assessee with regard to quantum bearing No. ITA No.4 of 2005 has been allowed on 25.2.2008. Consequently, no ground for imposition of penalty survives. In this view of the matter, the questions proposed cannot be held to be substantial questions of law. The appeal is dismissed. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 25, 2008 'kk'