| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2011 SLG 2647 2011 SLD 2647 (2011) 336 ITR 261 |
Punjab and Haryana High Court
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL AND AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ.
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Commissioner of Income Tax
v.
Raj Overseas*
Law:
Section:
Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income - Assessment year 2003-04 - Since issue regarding deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-IB in respect of duty drawback was a debatable issue, penalty could not be levied upon assessee [In favour of assessee] The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed by assessee under section 80-IB in respect of income from duty drawback and levied penalty upon it under section 271(1)(c). The Tribunal deleted the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) by holding that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Held that in view of the factual finding of the Tribunal, it could not be disputed that the issue was debatable and deduction claimed by the assessee did not lack bona fides. In such a situation, penalty under section 271(1)(c) was not attracted. CASES REVIEW CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) CASES REFERRED TO CIT v. Harshvardhan Chemicals and Mineral Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 212 (Raj.), CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 212 (SC), CIT v. Sterling Foods [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC),Liberty India v. CIT [2009] 317 ITR 218 (SC) and Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors[2008] 306 ITR 277 (SC). Yogesh Putney for the Appellant. JUDGMENT Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.-This order will dispose of I. T. A. Nos. 225 and 232 of 2010, as both the appeals raise common question of leviability of penalty when the assessee had put forward the claim which was found not acceptable. In I. T. A. No. 225 of 2010, the Revenue has claimed following substantial questions of law : "(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed under section 80-IB on the export incentives by holding that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, given the fact that the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court inCIT v. Sterling Foods, dated April 15, 1999 ( 237 ITR 579 (SC)) disallowing the claim of deduction under Chapter VI-A of the Act on the…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492