COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. LAKHANI INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue has preferred this appeal under s. 260A of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") against the order dt. 28th proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :

(2.) THE AO did not accept computation of deduction claimed by the assessee under s. 80HHC of the Act while adding back the amount wrongly claimed to be deduction, penalty was also imposed. On appeal, CIT(A) deleted the penalty on the ground that merely for raising a debatable issue, penalty could not be imposed, in absence of any concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee. The said finding has been affirmed by the Tribunal in following terms: "....The assessee during penalty proceedings claimed that there is no concealment and the addition/disallowances has been made on account of difference of opinion. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Revenue. Now the question arises whether penalty can be imposed on account of difference of opinion. The obvious reply is 'no' because the whole problem started due to the difference of opinion, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed its income which are the necessary ingredients for imposing penalty under s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee, during arguments contended that the matter was controversial till the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court in Ipca Laboratories was delivered as at the relevant time the decision in the case of Asstt. CIT vs. Avon Cycles Ltd. (2004) 82 TTJ (Chd) 127 Ipca Laboratories vs. Dy. CIT (2001) 170 CTR (Bom) 568 : (2001) 251 ITR 401 (Bom) was in favour of the assessee. It was also pleaded that in the own case of 2006. In the present appeal also the claim of the assessee was duly supported by certificate of chartered accountant. It is pertinent to mention here that the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ipca Laboratories Ltd. (supra) was in favour of the assessee when the return was filed. However, this decision was later on reversed by the Hon'ble apex Court. In view of these facts, it cannot be said that the assessee concealed its particulars of income."

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the Revenue. In view of finding concurrently recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee, we do not find any fault with the impugned order setting aside the levy of penalty. No substantial question of law arises.