I.T.A No. 407 of 2007 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : September 05, 2008 1. ITA No.406 of 2007 Sh. Shashi Pal Mehra vs C.I.T Amritsar. 2. ITA No.407 of 2007 Ravinder Pal Mehra vs C.I.T Amritsar CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr.S.K.Mukhi, Advocate for the appellant. *** 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 order shall dispose of ITA Nos.406 and 407 of 2007, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from ITA No.407 of 2007. The present appeal filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposes the following question of law :- “Whether the decision of ITAT and authorities below is perverse in holding that the revised return of income is not voluntary through the same was filed without the issuance of any notice u/s 142(1) or 148 or under any other enabling provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 I.T.A No. 407 of 2007 ::2:: so that so there was no concealment on the part of the appellant and thus the penalty as levied u/s 271(1)(c) is illegal and unjustified ? The appellant had originally filed return of income on 31.3.1999. Thereafter, during search operations conducted on 19.10.2001 at the premises of Shri Mohan Lal Arya & Sons group, copies of several partnership deeds of some firms based at Amritsar were seized which, on inquiries, unearthed a whole network of firms giving export profit by way of Hawala entries. It transpired that beneficiaries would become partners in bogus export firms by signing bogus partnership deeds, purchase the profits/shares in the firms' income and claim exemption in their hands as share of profit. The appellant was also one of such beneficiaries. On 27.3.2002, the appellant filed a revised return including the additional income of Rs.17.50 lacs and the assessment was ultimately framed at an income of Rs.21,74,440/-. Separate penalty proceedings were initiated and a penalty of Rs.5.25 lacs was imposed upon the appellant. The penalty having been confirmed by the authorities below the appellant is before us. Interestingly the explanation put-forth by the appellant is that he discovered the money in an almirah of his father at Haridwar and, being illiterate, or in any case semi literate, he invested the same as per the advice of his Chartered Accountant and that since he had voluntarily declared the same but before the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, albeit after a period of three years, penalty should not have been imposed. We find that the proposed question is a question of fact which cannot be gone into under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I.T.A No. 407 of 2007 ::3:: Consequently, the proposed question does not arise and the present appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE September 05, 2008 'kk'