IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.164 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.7.2011 The Commissioner of Income Tax -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Accent for Living -----Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing counsel for the Revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench “A”, New Delhi dated 9.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.4154/DEL/2009 for the assessment year 2004-05 proposing following 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 u/s 271(1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed under Section 80IB on export incentives 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 Asstt. Year 2001-02, and therefore, the assessee was evidently I.T.A. No.164 of 2011 filing inaccurate particulars of income in claiming deduction u/s 80IB on export incentives?” ii) “Whether the decision of the Ld. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to delete the penalty u/s 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 te 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?” Learned counsel for the appellant fairly states that the matter is covered against the revenue by order of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in The Commissioner of Income Taxc v. M/s Raj Overseas ITA No.225 of 2010. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE July 06, 2011 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 2