ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. - (1.) C .M. No. 12076C -II of 2008 : Application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Heard on merits. Main appeal : The Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') against the order dt. 12th 2000, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law : "(a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal has erred in holding that the AO has not recorded reasons or satisfaction before initiating penalty proceedings under s. 27l(1)(c) ? (b) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was erred in holding that the penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the IT 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 AO rejected the claim for exemption and made the assessment accordingly. The AO held that the produce marketed by the assessee was not grown by its members and thus, the assessee was not entitled to exemption. The AO 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. 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.;