JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA, J. - (1.) THE assessee filed a return for the asst. yr. 1990-91 declaring a loss of Rs. 1,92,643. The AO proceeded under S. 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961, and found that the loss was only Rs. 77,640. Having held that, the penalty proceedings under S. 271(1)(c) were initiated. Penalty was levied. On appeal by the assessee, the CIT(A) accepted the claim that no penalty could have been levied in view of the decision of the High Court in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. (1990) 85 CTR (P&H) 26 : (1990) 183 ITR 69 (P&H) : TC 50R.236. The Revenue filed an appeal before the Tribunal which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
(2.) MR . Sawhney contends that the assessee had concealed an income of Rs. 1,15,000. The AO had, thus declared the loss at Rs. 77,640 instead of Rs. 1,92,643 as claimed by the assessee. There was, thus, a concealment of income and penalty proceedings could be validly continued. He further submits that even negative income is a part of the income and the assessee being entitled to carry forward the loss to the subsequent year, it cannot be said that there was no concealment. After hearing the counsel for the Revenue, we find that the issue as sought to be raised in the present appeal is concluded by the judgment of this Court in Prithipal Singh's case (supra). Still further, the decision has been affirmed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Prithipal Singh & Co. (2001) 166 CTR (SC) 187 : (2001) 249 ITR 670 (SC).
(3.) MR . Sawhney submits that their Lordships of the Supreme Court have not given any reason for affirming the decision. In our opinion that is of no consequence. Once the decision has been affirmed in the civil appeal, it is binding on this Court. Resultantly, we find no ground to interfere. The appeal is dismissed.;