I.T.A. No. 574 of 2008. -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No. 574 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 27, 2008. The Commissioner of Income Tax-I, ---Appellant Ludhiana. Versus Shri Parveen Sood Prop. --Respondent M/s East West Indl. Exports CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L.N. MITTAL Present: Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Senior Standing Counsel for Revenue. *** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL.J (ORAL) The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench 'B' passed in I.T.A. No.67/CHANDI/2007 dated 19.9.2007 for the Assessment Year 2003-04, proposing following substantial question of law for consideration:- “ Whether on the facts and in law, the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty of Rs.11,84,236/- imposed u/s 271(1)(c) by ignoring the amendments made by Taxation Laws (Amendment Act No.55 of 2005?” During the assessment, the A.O. disallowed deduction under Section 80 HHC on negative profit and initiated penalty proceedings. This was followed by order of penalty, which was upheld by the CIT(A). On further appeal, the Tribunal held that even though the assessee may not be entitled to deduction u/s 80 HHC, there was nothing I.T.A. No. 574 of 2008. -2- to show that the claim of the assessee was not bonafide or that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars. In absence of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars, penalty was not justified. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue states that even after notice under Section 148 was issued and the assessee was asked to file fresh return the assessee reiterated the return that had already been filed. Learned counsel submitted that amendment introduced vide Act No. 55 of 2005 has been ignored by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel. Mere fact that the assessee reiterated his stand is not enough to show that stand of the assessee was not bonafide. There is nothing to show that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee did not furnish any incorrect particulars and his claim was bonafide is perverse. The amendment vide Act No.55 of 2005 does not relate to penalty but to the liability of the assessee to claim deduction under Section 80 HHC, which is not the issue. We, thus, do not find any substantial question of law in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE (L.N. MITTAL) JUDGE 27.11.2008 lucky