The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Om Overseas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 & connected case beingI.T.A. No.518 of 2010Date of decision: 18.11.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. Vs. M/s Om Overseas. -----Appellant. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counselfor the appellant. ---for the appellant. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.515 and 518 of2010 as both the appeals involve common questions of law. In I.T.A. No.515 of 2010 has been preferred by therevenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (forshort, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, New Delhi dated 28.8.2009 in I.T.A. No.56/DEL/2009 forthe assessment year 2004-04 proposing to raise followingsubstantial questions of law:- “i)Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances ofthe case, the Ld. 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 80IB onthe case, the Ld. 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 80IB on ii) iii) export incentives by holding that there was nodeliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by theassessee, given the fact that the decision of theHon’ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods Vs. CITdated 15.04.1999 (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. Year2003-04, and therefore, the assessee was evidentlyfiling inaccurate particulars of income in claimingdeduction u/s 80IB on export incentives?” Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Tax AppellateTribunal to delete the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Actis justified in the light of the decision of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (317 ITR218), whereby the non-allowability of 80IB deductionon export incentives has been re-affirmed? Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Tax AppellateTribunal quashing the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) onthe ground that there is no deliberate concealment isjustified in the light of the decision of the Hon’bleApex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors andothers, 306 ITR 277 (SC), whereas the assessee hadoffered an explanation which could not besubstantiated in the light of the Apex Court judgmentreferred in question No.(1) and ought to have beentaken 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 thatthe matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court 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, 2010ashwani (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE