IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.715 of 2010 (O&M) & other connected cases being I.T.A. No.716 & 717 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.12.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. Shri O.P. Goel HUF. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing Counsel for the appellant/revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. This order will dispose of I.T.A. Nos.715 to 717 of 2010 as common questions of law are sought to be raised in all the appeals. I.T.A. No.715 of 2010 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 29.1.2010 in I.T.A. No.4454/DEL/2009 proposing to raise 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 80IB on export incentives by holding that I.T.A. No.715 of 2010 there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, given the fact that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sterling Foods Vs. CIT dated 15.4.1999 (237 ITR 579) disallowing claim of deduction under Chapter VIA of the Act on export incentives was already available to the assessee at the time of filing of return of income for Assessment Year 2003-04, and therefore, the assessee was evidently filing inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction under Section 80IB on export incentives?” ii) “Whether the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Liberty India Vs. CIT (317) ITR 218), whereby the non-allowability of 8-0IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?” iii) “Whether the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground that there is no deliberate concealment is justified in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dharmendra Textile Processors and others, 306 ITR 277 (SC), which has held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for levy of penalty under Section 271 (1)(c) of the Act, and that levy of such penalty is mandatory as remedy for loss to revenue, and given the fact that such loss to revenue has occurred in the instant case due to wrong claim by the assessee with respect to deduction under Section 80IB?” 2 I.T.A. No.715 of 2010 Learned counsel for the revenue does not dispute that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in ITA 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 each connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 21, 2010 (RAJESH BINDAL) ashwani JUDGE 3