M/s Little Bee Impex, Doraha V. PCIT (Appeals) II, Ludhiana

ITA 303/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0071 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH MONGA
• Keywords: Business income; Revision of order; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Question of law; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Revised return
• Section: 80IB; 10B; 246; 263; 10; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 303/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S LITTLE BEE IMPEX, VS THE PCIT-II, VILLAGE MALHIPUR, LUDHIANA. G.T.ROAD, DORAHA. PAN: AABFL9170D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI YOGESH MONG A RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR,CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.04.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.05.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. PR. CIT-II LUDHIANA DATED 09.02.20 15 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 CHALLENGING THE LEVY OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 2 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CIT P ASSED ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT O F RS. 2,57,88,547/-. THE CIT, IN PARA 6 OF ORDER UND ER SECTION 263 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INCENTIVES RECEIVED FROM MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA UNDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA (VKUY) @ 5% OF FOB VALUE TO EXPORTS DIRECT INCOME. THE CIT ALSO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THE ORDER ON 03.01.2014 I N ITA 553/CHD/2011. THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN PARA 58, THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ENHANCEMENT MADE BY THE CIT AND HELD AS UNDER : 58.FURTHER BENEFITS ARE ALSO GIVEN UNDER THE SCHEM E, BUT THE RELEVANT BENEFITS OF THE SCHEME VIS--VIS ASSESSEE ARE AS REFERRED TO BY US IN THE ABOVE PARA . IN VIEW OF THE SCHEME UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ENTI TLED TO THE INCENTIVES WHICH IN TURN ARE TO COMPENSATE H IGH TRANSPORT COST AND TO OFFSET OTHER ADVANTAGES TO TH E EXPORTERS, AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INCENTIVES ARE TO BE ALLOWED AT REDUCED RATES WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS IN RECEIPT OF DUTY DRAWBACK, DEPB, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCENTIVES RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE UNDER THE VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA AS AN EXPORT 3 INCENTIVE WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO NEUTRALIZE THE INCIDENCE OF HIGH TRANSPORT COST AND ALSO TO OFFSET OTHER DISADVANTAGES. THE SAID NEUTRALIZATION AS IN THE CASE OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS LINKED TO THE FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS BY WAY OF DUTY CREDIT SCRIP. THE SAID BENE FITS ARE PROVIDED BY DGFT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE SAID SCHEME BEING SIMILAR TO THE SCHEME OF GRAN T OF DUTY DRAWBACK/DEPB AND IN TURN APPLYING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS. CIT (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 10B OF THE ACT ON THE SAID INCENTIVES. IN VIEW THE REOF, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF ENHANCEMENT PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN EXERCISE OF ITS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE GRO UND NO.5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS DISMISSED. 3(I) THE LD. PR. CIT ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDIN GS FOUND THAT ITAT HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA VS CIT 3 17 ITR 128. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 30.06.2014 WAS AGAIN ISSUED AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL BY CIT-II. IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE THAT EARLIE R PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE IN VIEW O F THE APPEAL PENDING BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH. THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. PR. CIT THA T ASSESSEE HAS FILED MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH AND PRAYED TO KEEP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ABEYANCE. 4 3(II) THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN GIVEN NOTICE DATED 11.07.2014 EVEN IF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION WAS PENDING. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT GIVE ANY REPLY, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2014 DISPOSED OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 3/CHD/14 ARISING IN I TA 553/CHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 UNDER APPEAL. THE ORDER OF THE ITAT WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-2 ON 11.09.2014 DISMISSING THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. 4. AGAIN, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.09.2014 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE THAT EARLIER THE PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT PEN DING AND THE TRIBUNAL DECIDED THE APPEAL ON 19.06.2014 I N FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IT WAS ALSO INTIMATED THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN FORMERLY RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF C IT-3 ON 11.09.2014 ONLY. AGAIN SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLETION OF THE PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE'S MAIN SUBMISSION WAS TH AT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 30.10.2006 WHEREAS THE SUPREME COUR T HAS GIVEN DECISION ON 31.08.2009 WHICH IS MUCH LATE R THAN FILING OF THE RETURN. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPO N CERTAIN DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION. 5. THE PR. CIT IN HIS FINDINGS NOTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO MERIT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) PRONOUNCED; ITS JUDGEMENT ON 5 22.09.2006 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006 I.E. LATER THAN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT AND OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON THE INCENTIVE GIVEN BY TH E GOVERNMENT. THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. FURTHER, ITAT HAD ALSO DECIDED THE ISSU E IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THAT MEANS ISSUE WAS ALREADY SETTLED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD H AVE FILED THE REVISED RETURN WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN CONSCIOUS RISK F OR TAKING SUCH A CLAIM, THEREFORE, PENALTY COULD BE IM POSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION-I TO THE AFORESAID SECTION. THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE. THERE IS NO DEBAT E ON THE ISSUE. THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, PR. CI T HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICU LARS OF INCOME AND LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT READ WITH EXPLANATION-I AND ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY WAS IMPOSED @ 100% ON THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF FURNISHING INACCUR ATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 6. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER LEVYING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 6 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT PEN ALTY IS TIME BARRED SINCE IT CAN BE LEVIED ONLY WITHIN S IX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH OF THE ORIGINAL IT AT ORDER IS RECEIVED BY CIT AND NOT FROM THE DATE WHEN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN DISPOSED OFF, WA S RECEIVED BY THE CIT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS PASSED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH ON 03.01.2014 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNA L DECLINED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON THE AMOUNT OF INCENTIVE RECE IVED BY IT @ 5% TO FOB VALUE OF EXPORTS UNDER VISHESH KR ISHI UPAJ YOJNA. FURTHER, ON 19.06.2014, ITAT CHANDIGARH DISMISSED THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT . SO, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT, PE NALTY CAN BE LEVIED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH OF ORIGINAL ITAT ORDER IS RECEIVED BY THE CIT . THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II KANPUR VS M/S K.M. SUGARS LTD.,KANPUR IN ITA NO. 59/2006 DATED 16.12.2015 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : IN THE INSTANT CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE TRIBUNAL'S OR DER WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 28.06 .1999 AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS REQUIRED TO BE PASSED ON OR BEFORE 31.12.1999. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PENALTY ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.01.2002 MUCH AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE P ERIOD OF LIMITATION AND, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ORDER OF PENALTY WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 7 IT WAS URGED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLA NT THAT AFTER PASSING OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, A RECTIFICATI ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 30 .04.2001 UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 16.07.2001 AND, THERE FORE, APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 275(L)(C) OF THE ACT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WAS EXTENDED TILL 31.03.2002 AND, BEF ORE THE EXPIRY OF THIS PERIOD, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER WAS PASS ED ON 31.01.2002, HENCE, IT WAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMI TATION. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UN DER SECTION 275 OF THE ACT IS APPARENTLY CLEAR, NAMELY, THAT THE OR DER OF PENALTY MUST BE PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF TH E MONTH IN WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER IS RECEIVED. THE SAID ORD ER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 28.06.1999. SIX MONTHS WOULD EXPIRE ON 31.12.1999. THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED MERELY BECAUSE AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FILING OF THE APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE-. THERE WAS NO EMBARGO UPON THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN NOT COMPLETING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS W ITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT IN THE CASES OF HIND WIRE INDUST RIES LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 212 ITR 639 (SC) AND HE NRI ISIDORE VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 240 ITR 247 (MAD) HAVE NO APPLICATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, FOR THE REASONS STATED AFORESAID, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTIN G THE APPEAL AND DELETING THE ORDER OF PENALTY HOLDING IT AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE APPEAL IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. THE QUESTION OF LAW, AS REFERRED, IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. ORDER DATE : 16.12.2015. 7. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF JASBIR SINGH VS ITO AND OTHERS IN 8 ITA 694/2010 DATED 18.10.2010 IN WHICH LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUN D THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE KEPT IN ABEYANCE TILL DISPOSAL OF APPEAL BY ITAT. HOWEVER, ITAT, CHANDIG ARH BENCH HAS NOT ACCEPTED THIS GROUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 275 OF THE ACT. THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE PEN ALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT IS CLEARLY TIME BAR RED AND IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AND QUASHED. 7(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED ORDER. THE LD. DR IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AGA INST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W AS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF PR. CIT-2 LUDHIANA ON 24.01.2014 WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY INTIMATION RECEIVE D FROM THE OFFICE OF PR. CIT-2 LUDHIANA. IT IS FURTH ER EXPLAINED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 19.06.2014 PASSED IN REFERENC E TO MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE ON 11.09.2014 WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY LETTER ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF PR. C IT-2 LUDHIANA. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASS ED BY PR. CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 09.02.2015 WHICH IS WIT HIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER I.E. O N 11.09.2014 OF ITAT PASSED IN MISCELLANEOUS APPLICAT ION FILED BY ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO SECTION 254 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THE ORDERS OF THE APPELLATE 9 TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WOULD ALSO COV ER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 254( 2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITT ED THAT LIMITATION SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF ORDER RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF CIT-2 ON 11.09.2014 WHICH IS ORDER PASSED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY TH E TRIBUNAL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER IS P ASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION BY THE LD. PR. CIT ON 09.02.2015. 7(II) THE LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESS EE REQUESTED THE PR. CIT TO KEEP THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS IN ABEYANCE SINCE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS NO MORAL GROUND TO RAISE THIS ISSUE WI TH REGARD TO TIME BARRED ORDER PASSED BY THE PR. CIT O N THE PENALTY ORDER. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THA T THE PENALTY ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE DA TES OF PASSING OF THE ORDERS BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263, ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ORDER PASSED IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED B Y THE PARTIES. THE DATES INTIMATED BY THE LD. DR AFTER V ERIFICATION OF THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY CIT-2 ON VARIOUS DATES HAVE AL SO NOT 10 BEEN DISPUTED AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SECTION 275 OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT PROVIDES AS UNDER : 275. [(1)] NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY UNDER THIS CHAP TER SHALL BE PASSED [(A) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR O THER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 [OR SECTION 246A] OR AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 253, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SIX MONTHS FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPE ALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR ] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR [ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR ] COMMISSIONER, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER : [ PROVIDED THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OT HER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 OR SECTION 246A, AND THE COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) PASSES THE ORDER ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2 003 DISPOSING OF SUCH APPEAL, AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED B EFORE THE EXPIRY OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED , ARE COMPLETED, OR WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR ] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR [ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR ] COMMISSIONER, WHICHEVER IS LATER;] (B) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OTHE R ORDER IS THE SUBJECT- MATTER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 [OR SECTION 26 4], AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH SUCH ORDER OF REVISION IS PASSED; (C) IN ANY OTHER CASE, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE FINA NCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE COURSE OF WHICH ACTION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED, ARE COMPLETED, OR SIX MONTHS FR OM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ACTION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS INITIATED, WHICHEVER PERIOD EXPIRES LATER.] [(1A) IN A CASE WHERE THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT OR OT HER ORDER IS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF AN APPEAL TO THE COMMISSIONER (AP PEALS) UNDER SECTION 246 OR SECTION 246A OR AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE T RIBUNAL UNDER SECTION 253 OR AN APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 26 0A OR AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT UNDER SECTION 261 OR REVISION UND ER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 AND AN ORDER IMPOSING OR ENHANCI NG OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS PASSED BEFORE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIO NER (APPEALS) OR THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR ] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE [ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR ] COMMISSIONER OR THE ORDER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED, AN ORDE R IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROP PING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY MAY BE PA SSED ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT AS REVISED BY GIVING EFFECT TO SUCH ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH CO URT, OR THE SUPREME COURT OR ORDER OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OR SEC TION 264: 11 PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER OF IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING OR CANCELLING PENALTY OR DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY SHALL BE PASSED (A) UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HEARD, OR HAS BEEN GIVEN A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD; (B) AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL OR THE HIGH COURT OR THE SUPREME COURT IS RECEIVED BY THE [ PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR ] CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR THE [ PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR ] COMMISSIONER OR THE ORDER OF REVISION UNDER SECTIO N 263 OR SECTION 264 IS PASSED: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 274 SHALL APPLY IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER IMPOSING OR ENHANCING OR REDUCING PENALTY UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION.] [(2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD I MMEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 (4 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ACTION INITIATED FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON OR BEFORE THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 1989.] [EXPLANATION.IN COMPUTING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (I) THE TIME TAKEN IN GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE REHEARD UNDER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 129; (II) ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH THE IMMUNITY GRANTED U NDER SECTION 245H REMAINED IN FORCE; AND (III) ANY PERIOD DURING WHICH A PROCEEDING UNDER TH IS CHAPTER FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS STAYED BY AN ORDER OR INJUNCTION OF ANY COURT, SHALL BE EXCLUDED.]] 8(I) IN THIS CASE, THE CIT-2 LUDHIANA PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.03.2011 AND ENHANCED THE INCOME BY RS. 2,57,88,457/- CONSIDERING EXCESSIVE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE CIT ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ORDER FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF T HE ACT REMAINED IN CHALLENGE BEFORE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITA 553/2011 AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 03.01.2014 AND 12 CONFIRMED THE ENHANCEMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.01.2014 HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF PR. CIT-2, LUDHIANA ON 24.01.2014. THE F IRST PART OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 275(1)(A) WOULD NOT A PPLY IN THIS CASE REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER U/S 263 AND COMPLETION OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, I N THE LATER PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 275(1) (A) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT COULD BE PASSED WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM T HE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS RECEIVED BY THE COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE , PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CO ULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE LD. PR. CIT ON OR BEFORE 31.07.2014. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER DATED 09.02.2015 IS CLEARLY TIME BARRED SINCE IT CA N BE LEVIED ONLY WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF TH E MONTH OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER OF ITAT RECEIVED BY CIT . 8(II) THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, CONTENDED THAT ACCORDING TO SECTION 254, THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 254(1) AND 254(2) SHALL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LIMITATION. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH SUBMISSION OF LD. DR BECAUSE SECTION 254(1) PROVIDES FOR PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE TRIBUNAL AS IT THINKS FIT. HOWEVER, I N SECTION 254(2), THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER TO RECTIFY AN Y MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, MAY AMEND ANY 13 ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, SECTION 254(2) PROVIDES FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF THE ACT. THIS IMPORTANT DISTINCT ION COULD NOT BE IGNORED WHILE REFERRING TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 275 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF LD. D R HAS ALSO BEEN ANSWERED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT-II KANPUR VS M/S K.M.SUGAR MILLS LTD., KANPUR (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE, THE ISSUE WAS IDENTICAL AS HAVE BEEN ARGUED BY LD. DR AND THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED MERELY BECAUSE AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 254 OF THE ACT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF FILING OF THE APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONTENTION OF LD. DR HAS NO MERIT AND IS REJECTED. 8(III) THE LD. DR ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LIMITATIO N WAS EXTENDED BECAUSE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST BEFORE PR. CIT TO KEEP THE MATTER IN ABEYANCE BECAUSE APPEAL/M.A. IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THIS POINT MAY RAISE SOME MORAL ISSUE BUT COULD NOT SUPERSEDE THE PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED UNDER INCOME TAX ACT AND SAME WAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FAVOURABLY BY ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN ITS ORDER IN THE CASE OF JASBIR SINGH VS ITO (SUPRA). 14 9. CONSIDERING ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT LIMITATION FOR PASSING OF THE PENALTY ORDER SH ALL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 03.01.2014 ON 24.01.201 4 BY PR. CIT-II LUDHIANA AND SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS PASSED BEYOND SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY CIT, THEREFORE, IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER IS TIME BARRED AND WOULD NOT SURVIVE. WE, ACCORDINGLY , SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND QUASH THE PENALTY ORDER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON MERITS CONTENDED THAT ON 22.09.2006, HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) HELD DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB, IS NOT ALLOWED ON DEPB INCENTIVES. THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AT 5% OF FOB VALUE TO EXPORTS UNDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA SCHEME AND NOT ON DEPB. THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIFFERENT ON TWO COUNTS I.E. FIRSTLY, T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B AND SECONDLY, ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORTS INCENTIVES I.E. VKUY. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006 AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON VKUY. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CONFIRMED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & 15 HARYANA HIGH COURT ON 31.08.2009 I.E. MUCH LATER THAN THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGEMENT DATED 07.12.2011 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ARTS & CRAFTS EXPORTS, ALLOWED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10BA ON DEPB AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA). HE HAS ALSO REF ERRED TO DECISION OF ITAT (SPECIAL BENCH) INDORE IN THE CASE OF MARAL OVERSEAS LTD. 16 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 565 (INDOR E) IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, ONCE AN INCOME FORMS PART OF THE BUSINESS OF INCOME OF ELIGIBLE UNDERTAKING O F THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE ELIGIBLE PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUC TION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS CLEARLY DEBATABLE AND ON SUCH FACTS, IT COULD NOT B E HELD THAT ASSESSEE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEFORE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADMITTED ON SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION OF LAW. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT IS ALSO FILED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE TWO VIEWS HAVE BEEN TAKEN ON THE MATTER AND I T IS DEBATABLE ISSUE, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 16 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN BY ASSESSEE, THERE WAS DECISIO N OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AVAILABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) WHICH IS LATER ON CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND ANOTHER JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF STERLING FOODS 237 ITR 579 WAS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE FURNISHE D INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY. HE HAS RELIED UP ON DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S ZOO M COMMUNICATION 327 ITR 510. THE LD. DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DEBATABLE ISSUE ARISES O N THE ISSUE. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) BEFORE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WAS, WHETHER TRIBUNAL IS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY BY NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IB ON AMOUNT OF DEPB AND DUTY DRAW BACK BEING EXPORT INCENTIVE @ 25% OF RS. 22,70,056/- BEI NG RS. 5,67,514/-. IN THIS CASE, THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ON 22.09.2006 WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT VIDE JUDGEMENT DATED 31.08.2009. THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER , 17 FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL BEFORE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING QUESTION OF LAW, WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE TRIBUNAL ERRED IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON THE PROFITS FROM SALE OF DUTY CREDIT SCRIP UNDER SE CTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 ?. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DMITTED. 12(I) THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AR T & CRAFTS EXPORTS 246 CTR 463 DATED 07.12.2011 IN WHICH HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) DECID ED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING DEPB AS A PROFIT DERIVED FROM EXPORT BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10BA. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO REFERRED TO DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MARAL OVERSEAS LTD . (SUPRA) IN WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON INCOME FORMING PART OF THE BUSINESS INCOME. 12(II) THESE FACTS WOULD, THEREFORE, CLEARLY SHOW T HAT ON THE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN BY ASSESSEE ON 30.10.2006, THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE KNOWING NICETY OF TWO PROVISIONS OF LAW AND TWO DIFFERENT QUESTION S OF 18 LAW CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF LIBERTY INDIA (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NOTHIN G CAN BE INFERRED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ORDER OF THE CIT UNDER SECTI ON 263 WAS PASSED ON 24.03.2011 AFTER FILING OF THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L WAS ALSO PRONOUNCED ON 03.01.2014 I.E. AFTER FILING OF THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS OR DER DATED 03.01.2014 HAS CONSIDERED THE INCENTIVES IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TO BE ON SIMILAR SCHEME AS HAV E BEEN GRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF DUTY DRAW BACK/DEPB. THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT ON DATE OF FILING OF RETURN ON 30.10.2006, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE KNOWING THE NICETY OF LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ALL THE PARTICUL ARS OF CLAIM MADE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE ON HAVING A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BASED ON DIFFERENT CASE LAWS I.E. CASE LAWS CONSIDERED BY TH E CIT IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND THE DECISIONS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS FAVOUR. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT FOR ADJUDICATION AND IS PENDING. 19 12(III) IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT ON MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSEL F WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. WE RELY UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PENALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LIABILITY WOULD ARISE. TO ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WHERE THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN ARE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH A CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN 20 CANNOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 13. NO FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ASSESSEE MADE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE CLAIM FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALIT Y OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT O F SALE OF INCENTIVES UNDER VISHESH KRISHI UPAJ YOJNA SO AS TO ATTRACT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CANCEL THE PENALTY. WE CLARIFY THAT FINDINGS IN THIS ORDER ARE RELEVANT TO PENALTY MATTER ONLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH MAY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD