Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 12, Karnal v. M/S Priya International, Panipat

Income-tax Appeal No.34 of 2011 *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.34of 2011 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 12, Karnal ...Appellant Versus M/s Priya International, Panipat ...Respondent and other connected appeal beingITA No.35 of 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1.This order will dispose of ITAs No.34 and 35 of 2011, as it isstated that questions of law involved in both the appeals are common. 2.ITA No.34 of 2011 has been preferred by the revenueunder Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against orderdated 14.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DelhiBench 'B', Delhi in ITA No.4145/Del/2009, for the assessment year2001-02, raising following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in law in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271 (1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IBon export incentives by holding that there was nodeliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by theassessee, ignoring the fact that the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods Vs. CITdated 15.4.1999 (237 ITR 579) disallowing claim ofdeduction under Chapter VIA of the Act on exportincentives was already available to the assessee atthe time of filing of return of income for Asstt. Year2001-02, and, therefore, the assessee wasevidently filing inaccurate particulars of income inclaiming deduction under Section 80IB on exportincentives?” ii) Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Taxappellate Tribunal to delete the penalty underSection 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light ofthe decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LibertyIndia Vs. CIT (317) ITR 218), whereby the non-allowability of 8-0IB deduction on export incentiveshas been re-affirmed?” iii) Whether the decision of the Ld. Income TaxAppellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order underSection 271(1)(c) on the ground that there is nodeliberate concealment is justified in the light of thedecision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DharmendraTextile Processors and others, 306 ITR 277 (SC), whereas the assessee had offered in the light of theApex Court judgment referred in question No.(1)and ought to have been taken as deemedconcealment within Explanation -1(B) of Section271(1)(c) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961?” 3.Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly states thatmatter is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Courtdated 28.7.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010 The Commissioner ofIncome-Tax Vs. M/s Raj Overseas. 4.In view of above, no substantial question of law arises.The appeals are dismissed. 5.A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of theconnected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 18,2011Pka (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Judge