Cit vs Eicon International (P) Ltd.
2007 Latest Caselaw 1749 Del

JUDGMENT

1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 12-12-2006 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'H' in ITA No. 1053/Delhi/ 2006 relevant for the assessment year 2001-02.

2. The assessed is engaged in the business of export of engineering goods and installation and commissioning of equipment at the site of the customer and providing other services as per the requirement of the customers.

3. The assessed had filed a return claiming a deduction under Section 80HHC of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. The assessed thereafter filed a revised return in which he made a claim of deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act.

5. The assessing officer took the view on the revised claim of the assessed that it was not bona fide and the assessed has not been able to furnish requisite evidence regarding various conditions that are required to be met for allowing a deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act. Therefore, the assessing officer took no cognizance of the revised claim. There were certain other deduction claimed by the assessed and these were also disallowed.

6. The assessing officer concluded the assessment order with the following words:

Assessed. Tax is hereby charged. Interest under Section 234B/C/D is hereby charged. Issue ITNS 150. Demand Notice & Challan, Penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) have been initiated.

7. Thereafter the assessing officer passed an order dated 27-7-2005 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act levying a penalty of Rs. 5,50,112 on the assessed. Feeling aggrieved, the assessed preferred an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) (Commissioner (Appeals)). By his order dated 13-1-2006, the Commissioner (Appeals) was of the view that no ground had been made out by the Assessing Officer for imposing penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) specifically held that it could not be said that the appellant had concealed income or furnished inaccurate particulars of its income. The penalty was, therefore, cancelled.

8. The revenue then preferred an appeal before the Tribunal which also took the same view. In addition, the Tribunal was of the opinion that in view of the decision of this Court in CIT v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. (2000) 246 ITR 568, the assessing officer had not recorded his satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

9. Without going into the question of the applicability of the decision of this Court in Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd.s case (supra), we find that on merits, the concurrent view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal is unexceptionable. Both the authorities have found that no case of either concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessed had been made out by the assessing officer. We too find that the issues involved in the assessment were debatable and even if the assessed was not entitled to claim a deduction under Section 80HHB of the Act it does not necessarily mean that the assessed had concealed its income with a view to gain any unforeseeable benefit.

10. We find no merits in the case. No substantial question of law arises.

Dismissed.