Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt. Roshni Dev

Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.—This order will dispose of ITA Nos. 341 and 342 of 2010 as common questions of law are involved.

ITA No. 341 of 2010 has been filed by the revenue u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") against order dated 15.4.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ''C'' New Delhi in ITA No. 80/(Del)/08 for the assessment year 1999-2000 proposing to raise the following substantial questions of law:

I. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) as confirmed by the Ld. ITAT that additions made in the assessment order on the basis of which penalty for concealment was levied are deleted, there remains no basis at all to levy penalty, are perverse and contrary to the evidence available on record as the penalty was levied by the Assessing Officer on the amount stands finally confirmed as it was confirmed from the Authorized Representative by the Assessing Officer/Addl. CIT Range Head that no further appeal has been filed by the assessee against the decision of Assessing Officer regarding the interest on enhanced compensation at Rs. 31,83,202/- [See Annexure - "x", page 1 to 3]?

II. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 9,45,701/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though the penaly is leviable on contravention of the provisions of a civil statute like Income Tax Act and it is settled law that breach of a civil obligation attracts levy of penalty whether the contravention was made by the defaulter with any guilty intention or not and in contradiction to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Dharamendra Textile Processors and Others,

III. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 9,45,701/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in view of judgment of Apex Court as the entire controversy on the year of taxability of enhanced compensation and interest thereon has now come to rest with the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam (HUF), wherein it has held that the year in which enhanced compensation is received is the year of taxability?

We have heard learned Counsel for the revenue.

It is not disputed that we have considered the issue in our recent order dated 15.7.2010 in ITA No. 16 of 2010 [The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Fateh Singh (HUF)] and decided the matter against the revenue.

Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.

A photo copy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.