The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Flora Exports

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Flora Exports. I.T.A. No.691 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.12.2010 -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counselfor the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This appeal has been preferred by the revenue underSection 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”)against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NewDelhi dated 28.1.2010 in I.T.A. No.4147/DEL/2009 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of thecase, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed underSection 80IB on export incentives by holding thatthere was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurateparticulars by the assessee, given the fact that thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SterlingFoods Vs. CIT dated 15.4.1999 (237 ITR 579)disallowing claim of deduction under Chapter VIA ofthe Act on export incentives was already available tothe assessee at the time of filing of return of incomefor Asstt. Year 2004-05, and therefore, the assesseewas evidently filing inaccurate particulars of income inclaiming deduction under Section 80IB on exportincentives?”case, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin law in deleting the penalty imposed under Section271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed underSection 80IB on export incentives by holding thatthere was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurateparticulars by the assessee, given the fact that thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SterlingFoods Vs. CIT dated 15.4.1999 (237 ITR 579)disallowing claim of deduction under Chapter VIA ofthe Act on export incentives was already available tothe assessee at the time of filing of return of incomefor Asstt. Year 2004-05, and therefore, the assesseewas evidently 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 under Section271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light of thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty IndiaVs. CIT (317) ITR 218), whereby the non-allowabilityof 80-IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?”Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty under Section271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light of thedecision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty IndiaVs. CIT (317) ITR 218), whereby the non-allowabilityof 80-IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?” iii)“Whether the decision of the Ld. Income TaxAppellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A)quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on theground that there is no deliberate concealment isjustified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble ApexCourt in Dharmendra Textile Processors and others,306 ITR 277 (SC), whereas the assessee had offeredan explanation which could not be substantiated in thelight of the Apex Court judgement referred in questionNo.(1) and ought to have been taken as deemedconcealment within Explanation -1(b) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?”Appellate Tribunal confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A)quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on theground that there is no deliberate concealment isjustified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble ApexCourt in Dharmendra Textile Processors and others,306 ITR 277 (SC), whereas the assessee had offeredan explanation which could not be substantiated in thelight of the Apex Court judgement referred in questionNo.(1) and ought to have been taken as deemedconcealment within Explanation -1(b) of Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” Learned counsel for the revenue does not disputethat the matter is covered against the revenue by order of thisCourt dated 28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010CIT v. M/s RajOverseas. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 14, 2010ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE