IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. I.T.A. No.267 of 2010 (O&M) & connected case being I.T.A. No.268 of 2010 Date of decision: 13.8.2010 The Commissioner of Income Tax. -----Appellant. Vs. M/s Shiv Shakti Exports. -----Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. Yogesh Putney, Advocate for the revenue. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of I.T.A. No.267 and 268 of 2010, as common questions of law are involved in both the appeals. 2. I.T.A. No.267 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 dated 20.5.2009 in I.T.A. No.3814/Del/2008 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law:- “1. 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 u/s 80-IB on export incentives by I.T.A. No.267 of 2010 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 15.04.1999 (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 the return of income for A.Y. 2002-03, and therefore, the assessee was evidently filing inaccurate particulars of income in claiming 80IB on export incentives.?” ii) “Whether the decision of the 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 80IB deduction on export incentives has been re-affirmed?” iii) “Whether the decision of the 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 & Ors., 306 ITR 277 (SC), which has held that mens rea is not an essential ingredient for levy of penalty u/s 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 w.r.t. deduction u/s 80IB?” 2 I.T.A. No.267 of 2010 3. Since the matter is covered by order of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in I.T.A. No.225 of 2010 CIT v. M/s Raj Overseas against the revenue, these appeals are dismissed. 4. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other connected case. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE August 13, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 3