The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Gupta International

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Gupta International. I.T.A. No.807 of 2010 (O&M)Date of decision: 13.1.2011 -----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.for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. 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 26.3.2010 in I.T.A. No.4465/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 u/s 271(1)(c) onthe amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IB on exportincentives given 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. Year2002-03, and therefore, the assessee was evidentlycase, the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was rightin law in deleting the penalty imposed u/s 271(1)(c) onthe amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IB on exportincentives given 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. Year2002-03, and therefore, the assessee was evidently filing inaccurate particulars of income in claimingdeduction under Section 80IB on export incentives?” ii)“Whether the decision of the Ld. Income TaxAppellate Tribunal to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act is justified in the light of the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT(317)ITR 218), whereby the non-allowability of 8-0IBdeduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?”Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c)of the Act is justified in the light of the decision of theHon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT(317)ITR 218), whereby the non-allowability of 8-0IBdeduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?” iii)“Whether the decision of the Ld. Income TaxAppellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that there is no deliberateconcealment is justified in the light of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmendra TextileProcessors and others, 306 ITR 277 (SC), whereasthe assessee had offered an explanation which couldnot be substantiated in the light of the Apex Courtjudgement referred in question No.(1) and ought tohave been taken as deemed concealment withinExplanation -1(b) of Section 271 (1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961?”Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) on the ground that there is no deliberateconcealment is justified in the light of the decision ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmendra TextileProcessors and others, 306 ITR 277 (SC), whereasthe assessee had offered an explanation which couldnot be substantiated in the light of the Apex Courtjudgement referred in question No.(1) and ought tohave been taken as deemed concealment withinExplanation -1(b) of Section 271 (1)(c) of the IncomeTax Act, 1961?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that thematter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas.3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE January 13, 2011ashwani ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE