TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (1) TMI 1311
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2014, by proposing the following question stated to be a substantial question of law: "Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law and on facts in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act?" 2. The assessment year is 2009-10. The assessee company was engaged in the business of knowledge process outsourcing. The assessee filed return of income on 29.9.2009 declaring total income of Rs. 76,06,815/-. Subsequently, revised return came to be filed by the assessee on 22.3.2010 declaring 'nil' income. In the revised return, the assessee company claimed deduction under section 10B of the Act amounting to Rs. 80,69,579/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment came to be framed under section 143(3) of the Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. However, the assessee subsequently found that it was registered with STPI with effect from 18.2.2009 and accordingly preferred appeal against the assessment order, bringing the correct facts on record and reiterated the claim of deduction under section 10B of the Act. In the meanwhile, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with the penalty proceedings and imposed penalty for concealment. 5. Before the Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee had submitted that it was under the bona fide belief that it could start claiming deduction for a period of ten consecutive assessment years beginning with the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the undertaking had begun its operation and that all the conditions related to the cla....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he details regarding receipt of foreign exchange were also furnished at the time of assessment proceedings. There was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding receipt of income from exports. He, accordingly, was of the view that no penalty for concealment could be imposed as the error had been committed on account of the mistake on the part of the chartered accountant. The Commissioner (Appeals) found that the assessee had explained in bona fide and placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petro Products Private Limited, (2010) 322 ITR 158, deleted the penalty. 6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, has agreed with the findings recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. From the facts ....