Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/S Om Overseas on 18 November, 2010
Author: Adarsh Kumar Goel
Bench: Adarsh Kumar Goel, Ajay Kumar Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 & connected case being
I.T.A. No.518 of 2010
Date of decision: 18.11.2010
The Commissioner of Income Tax.
-----Appellant.
Vs.
M/s Om Overseas.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel
for the appellant.
---
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.
This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.515 and 518 of 2010 as both the appeals involve common questions of law.
In I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 28.8.2009 in I.T.A. No.56/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2004-04 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:-
"i) Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)
(c) on the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IB on I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 2 export incentives by holding that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, given the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods Vs. CIT dated 15.04.1999 (237 ITR 579) disallowing claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act on export incentives was already available to the assessee at the time of filing of return of income for Asstt. Year 2003-04, and therefore, the assessee was evidently filing inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction u/s 80IB on export incentives?"
ii) Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (317 ITR
218), whereby the non-allowability of 80IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?
iii) Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that there is no deliberate concealment is justified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors and others, 306 ITR 277 (SC), whereas the assessee had offered an explanation which could not be substantiated in the light of the Apex Court judgment referred in question No.(1) and ought to have been taken as deemed concealment within Explanation-1 (B) of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?"
Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 3 dated 28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case.
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 18, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
ashwani JUDGE