IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.676 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.12.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Concept Creation. -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr.Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal 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.4451/DEL/2009 proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. 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 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 I.T.A. No.676 of 2010 for Asstt. Year 2004-05, 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 Ld. 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 Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal quashing the penalty order u/s 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), whereas the assessee had offered an explanation which could not be substantiated in the light of the Apex Court judgement referred in question No.(1) and ought to have been taken as deemed concealment within Explanation -1(b) of Section 271 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?” 2. Learned counsel for the revenue fairly states that the 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. 3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE 2 I.T.A. No.676 of 2010 December 13, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3