The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri O.p. Goel Huf

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) & other connected cases beingI.T.A. No.716 & 717 of 2010Date of decision: 21.12.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shri O.P. Goel HUF. -----Appellant. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:-Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counselfor the appellant/revenue. for the appellant/revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.715 to 717 of2010 as common questions of law are sought to be raised in allthe appeals. I.T.A. No.715 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 29.1.2010 in I.T.A. No.4454/DEL/2009proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inlaw in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed underSection 80IB on export incentives by holding thatcase, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right inlaw in deleting the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed underSection 80IB on export incentives by holding that ii) iii) there 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 Assessment Year 2003-04, and therefore, theassessee was evidently filing inaccurate particulars ofincome in claiming deduction under Section 80IB onexport incentives?” “Whether the decision of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal to delete the penalty under Section 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?” “Whether the decision of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal quashing the penalty order under Section271(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), which hasheld that mens rea is not an essential ingredient forlevy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act,and that levy of such penalty is mandatory as remedyfor loss to revenue, and given the fact that such lossto revenue has occurred in the instant case due towrong claim by the assessee with respect todeduction under Section 80IB?” Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute thatthe matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Courtdated 28.7.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010 (CIT v. M/s RajOverseas). Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 21, 2010ashwani (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE