ITA No.530 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.530 of 2007 Date of decision: 18.2.2008 The Commissioner of Income tax, ......Appellant Chandigarh-II Versus Sh. Ravinder Pal, H.No.260, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh ......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate for the appellant-revenue. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J . 1. The present appeal has been filed by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') against the order dated 10.4.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench-A in ITA No.194/Chandi/2006 raising the following substantial question of law: “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in deleting the penalty levied, when the quantum of income assessed, which forms the basis for levy of the penalty, has not attained its finality?” 2. The assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1995-96 was completed on 27.3.1998 and additions were made by the Assessing Officer. While completing the assessment, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 were initiated. On the request of the assessee, these penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the ITA No.530 of 2007 2 assessee had filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh. The appeal was decided by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh, vide his order dated 2.3.2001 and additions of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment in the construction of M/s RPS Hotel and of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash found at the residence of the assessee during search were deleted. However, the other additions made by the Assessing Officer were confirmed. 3. The revenue filed an appeal before the ITAT, Chandigarh only on one issue i.e. the relief allowed by the CIT(A) in respect of the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash. The Tribunal vide its order dated 6.10.2004 dismissed the appeal of the revenue and confirmed the order of the CIT(A). 4. The Department further filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Act against the order of the ITAT in quantum appeal before this Court. 5. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Chandigarh vide his order dated 28.4.2005 imposed penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act upon the assessee. The appeal filed by the assessee against the order of penalty was dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chandigarh vide his order dated 3.2.2006. However, the Tribunal vide its order dated 10.4.2007 allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and quashed the penalty order. Hence, this appeal by the revenue against the said order of ITAT. 6. We have heard Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Advocate learned counsel for the revenue and perused the record. 7. At the very outset, Mr. Garg has brought to our knowledge that the present appeal filed by the revenue does not survive as the quantum appeal filed by the revenue against the asssessee has already been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2007. ITA No.530 of 2007 3 8. In view of this, the present appeal fails as no substantial question of law would arise for determination of this Court. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE February 18, 2008 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) ps JUDGE