Income-tax Appeal No.34 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income-tax Appeal No.34 of 2011 Date of decision: 18.4.2011 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 12, Karnal ...Appellant Versus M/s Priya International, Panipat ...Respondent and other connected appeal being ITA No.35 of 2011. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Yogesh Putney, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant. **** ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This order will dispose of ITAs No.34 and 35 of 2011, as it is stated that questions of law involved in both the appeals are common. 2. ITA No.34 of 2011 has been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against order dated 14.5.2010 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', Delhi in ITA No.4145/Del/2009, for the assessment year 2001-02, raising 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 u/s 271 Income-tax Appeal No.34 of 2011 -2- *** (1)(c) on the amount of deduction claimed u/s 80IB on export incentives by holding that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, ignoring 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 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 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), Income-tax Appeal No.34 of 2011 -3- *** whereas the assessee had offered in the light of the Apex Court judgment 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?” 3. Learned counsel for the revenue very fairly states that matter is covered against the revenue by the judgment of this Court dated 28.7.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010 The Commissioner of Income-Tax Vs. M/s Raj Overseas. 4. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises. The appeals are dismissed. 5. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 18,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge