THE COMM. OF INCOME TAX vs. O.P GOEL HUF PORP. M/S PARKASH WOOLLEN INDS.

ITA/715/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093679201021 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL,MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue, Commissioner of Income Tax, filed appeals under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). The ITAT had deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeals concerned Assessment Year 2003-04. The dispute revolved around the deletion of penalty levied for claiming deduction under Section 80IB on export incentives, which the Revenue contended was an inaccurate particular of income. The Revenue argued that the assessee was aware of the Supreme Court decision in Sterling Foods vs. CIT, which disallowed such deductions, at the time of filing the return.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue did not dispute that the matter was covered against the Revenue by a previous order of the same Court dated 28.07.2010 in ITA No.225 of 2010 (CIT vs. M/s Raj Overseas). Therefore, the appeals were dismissed on the basis of this precedent. The specific reasoning of the ITAT or the detailed arguments on each of the substantial questions of law raised by the Revenue were not elaborated upon in the judgment, as the dismissal was based on the binding precedent. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for claiming deduction under Section 80IB on export incentives, given the Supreme Court decision in Sterling Foods vs. CIT was available when the return was filed, implying deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars? (Section 271(1)(c)) 2. Whether the ITAT's deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is justified in light of the Supreme Court decision in Liberty India vs. CIT, which reaffirmed the non-allowability of 80IB deduction on export incentives? (Section 271(1)(c)) 3. Whether the ITAT's quashing of the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground of no deliberate concealment is justified, considering the Supreme Court decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors, which held that mens rea is not essential for penalty levy under Section 271(1)(c) and that levy is mandatory for revenue loss due to wrong claims? (Section 271(1)(c)) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The assessee deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming deduction under Section 80IB on export incentives, despite the Supreme Court decision in Sterling Foods vs. CIT being available. The penalty deletion is unjustified in light of Liberty India vs. CIT and Dharmendra Textile Processors, as mens rea is not required for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and levy is mandatory for revenue loss.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260-A,Section 271(1)(c),Section 80IB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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 inaccu

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 260-A

All 2,347 judgments and leading authorities on Section 260-A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →