TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 787
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion of law:- "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal erred in law in cancelling the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that on the date of filing of the return of income, it was in the knowledge of the assessee that the amount claimed by him as exemption under Section 10B of the Act was not correct to the extent of Rs.26,53,959/- as alleged by the appellant's counsel, in as much as the export sales of Rs.29,48,843/- had not been received in India by the said date"? The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s. Shyam Solutions and during the assessment year under consideration, the assessee was engaged in the business of export of computer softwares. While fil....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....11.2009 has restored the matter back to the Tribunal to decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law. As per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court, again, the Tribunal has passed a fresh order dated 18.03.2010, where the cancellation of the penalty was again upheld by passing the impugned order. Having the pain, the Department has again filed the present appeal. With this background, Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the Department has justified the levy of the penalty by the AO. He submits that the assessee in FORM No. 56G attached with the return where it was shown that an amount of Rs.1,60,81,545/- was brought into India. For the remaining amount, permission has been applied for, which was granted upto 31.12.2003 and furthe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscussed in the impugned order. After hearing both the parties at length and on perusal of the record, it appears that the accounts were duly audited and the exemption under Section 10B was claimed by furnishing the report in FORM No. 56G read with Rule 16E of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. So, all the facts were disclosed to the AO. From the record, it also appears that the claim denied by the AO under Section 10B was based on the facts disclosed in the return of income filed by the assessee. It is also evident that uncollected sums were export income from the software which was not approved by the clients. So, the assessee did not receive the same in time. As and when payment received, the same was disclosed to the Department. In view of ....