CIT, KARNAL vs. M/S CONCEPT CREATIONS, PANIPAT

ITA/677/2010HC Punjab & HaryanaPHHC01093636201013 December 2010Author: MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue has filed an appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), New Delhi, dated January 29, 2010. The ITAT had deleted the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the assessee, M/s Concept Creation. The penalty was related to a deduction claimed under Section 80IB on export incentives for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The Revenue is challenging the ITAT's decision to delete this penalty.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Court noted that the learned counsel for the Revenue fairly stated that the matter was covered against the Revenue by a previous order of the same Court dated July 28, 2010, in ITA No. 225 of 2010, CIT vs. M/s Raj Overseas. Therefore, the Court did not delve into the merits of the substantial questions of law raised. The ratio decidendi is that if a matter is covered by a prior decision of the same High Court, the appeal would be dismissed on that basis. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was correct in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by holding that there was no deliberate furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee, considering the Supreme Court decision in Sterling Foods Vs. CIT was available at the time of filing the return? (Question of law) 2. Whether the ITAT's decision to delete the 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? (Question of law) 3. Whether the ITAT's decision to quash the penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) on the ground of no deliberate concealment is justified, given the Supreme Court decision in Dharmendra Textile Processors and others, where the assessee's unsubstantiated explanation should be deemed concealment under Explanation 1(b) to Section 271(1)(c)? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: Not recorded. Revenue's contentions: The Revenue argued that the assessee had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars by claiming deduction under Section 80IB on export incentives, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in Sterling Foods and Liberty India. They contended that the assessee's explanation was unsubstantiated and should be considered deemed concealment.

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.677 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.4450/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 the Act on export in

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 →