2009 (11) TMI 964

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e learned Tribunal has erred 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 Rs. 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 Rs. 42,01,300. The assessment was framed under s. 143(3) at an income of Rs. 69,10,841 on 31st March, 2006 and penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee had shown export ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eport 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 appeal, case ....