I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision : November 28, 2008. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Panchkula .... Appellant Vs. M/s Haryana State Co-op Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., Panchkula .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate for the Assessee. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : C. M. No. 12076-C-II of 2008 : Application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard on merits. Main Appeal : 1. The Revenue has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order dated 12.03.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (B), I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Chandigarh passed in ITA No.342/Chandi/2006 for the Assessment Year 1999-2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :- “a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT has erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has not recorded reasons or satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) ? b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was erred in holding that the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the I. T. Act 1961 is not leviable ?” 2. The Assessee is a Co-operative Society and as an agent of Government, procures agricultural commodities from the grain markets in Haryana. The Assessee filed return of NIL income. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim for exemption and made the assessment accordingly. The Assessing Officer held that the produce marketed by the Assessee was not grown by its members and thus, the Assessee was not entitled to exemption. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty. The CIT (A) upheld the penalty. The Tribunal, however, set aside the same holding that the Assessee had challenged the retrospective amendment and there was stay. There was no concealment. The Assessee had raised bona fide plea of non- leviability of the tax. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that High Court had not granted stay, but had stayed only the recovery of arrears and thus, the assessee wrongly claimed exemption. 5. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence, recorded a finding that the assessee could not be held to be deliberately attempting to evade the tax. The assessee had not concealed anything. I. T. A. No. 428 of 2008 (O&M) 3 6. We are unable to hold that finding recorded by the Tribunal is perverse. 7. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 28, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE