Ita/89/2011 Of Director Of Income Tax v. Uop Services Ltd

#19 & 20 olo.I4,O9.zOLt Present: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, Sr.Standing Counsel for theappellant.Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocatewith Mr. Mayank Nagi, Adv.for the assessee. (Common Orders) +ITA No.89/2O11 % The respondent assessee is a foreign company incorporated in India. It had filed income tax return for theAssessment Years 2OO2-03 and 2003-04 declaring a total income of<2,77,83,950/- and {12,19,2L6/- respectively and offered the same for<2,77,83,950/- and {12,19,2L6/- respectively and offered the same fortaxation at special rate of L5o/o on gross basis as per Double TaxationAvoidance Agreement (in short'DTAA') between India and u.K.During the assessment proceedings, it transpired that the aforesaidincome was at 20o/o of gross profit. On realization of this mistake, theassessee revised its return and offered and paid the entire income totax @ 20o/o on the gross receipts. On the premise that the assesseehad made concealment of income by furnishing wrong receipts, the Aoinitiated penalty proceedings under Section 27r(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act and imposed penalty of <13,89,t97/-.assessee revised its return and offered and paid the entire income totax @ 20o/o on the gross receipts. On the premise that the assesseehad made concealment of income by furnishing wrong receipts, the Aoinitiated penalty proceedings under Section 27r(1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act and imposed penalty of <13,89,t97/-. a' t' Though this penalty order was affirmed by the CIT (A), the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('the Tribunal'for brevity) has reversedthe order and deleted the penalty. Against the order of the Tribunalthe instant appeals are preferred. Signature Not Verified $ ),.t, ? We find from the order of the Tribunal that the Tribunalhas accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee, which led theassessee to believe that the tax was payable @ rSo/o of the grossreceipts. It is also held that on realization of this mistake, theassessee had revised the computation. these circumstances, we are of the opinion that nosubstantial question of law arises. These appeals are accordinglydismissed. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J. SEPTEMBER t4,2OtLpmc