9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in holding that there was no concealment of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars without considering the case of Revenue and appreciating that the assessee claimed the excess deduction under s. 10B even when he knew fully well that the export sale proceeds amounting to ₹ 29,48,843 have not been brought into India within the time-limit prescribed under cl. (3) of s. 10B." 3. Facts giving rise to instant income-tax appeal are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29th March, 2004 declaring income of ₹ 42,01,300. The assessment was framed under s. 143(3) at an income of ₹ 69,10,841 on 31st March, 2006 and penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee had shown export sales of softw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rnishing the report in Form No. 56G r/w r. 16E, and as such there was no concealment of income. It was further stated that the addition made by the AO under s. 10B was based on the facts disclosed in the return of income by the assessee. It was contended that uncollected sums were export income from software not approved by the clients so the assessee did not receive the same. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee, held that the concealment of income was not established, therefore, no penalty was leviable. Thereafter an appeal was filed by the Department before the Tribunal and same was also dismissed. 4. Sri D.D. Chopra, senior learned standing counsel for the IT Department contended with vehemence that in the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7. Tribunal has considered the case of the assessee but all these developments which had taken place after report has been given by chartered accountant dt. 28th Oct., 2003, i.e., extension of time upto 31st Dec., 2003 and further extension of time upto 31st March, 2004 in respect of the amount to be brought in India and the fact that amount was not received till extension was granted and exemption was in respect of its total export sale, the said facet of the matter has not at all been dealt with. 8. Tribunal ought to have adverted to, on the version of Revenue authority also instead of proceeding to place reliance on the version of the assessee alone. Decision-making process is vitiated. 9. Consequently, order dt. 12th Sept., 2008 passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
