Amg Business Solution Pvt.Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " D " BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA Kr. YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.)

I.T. A. No. 2539/AHD/2011 (Assessment Year: 2006-07)

I.T.O., Ward 1(1), V/S AMG Business Solution Pvt. Ahmedabad Ltd., 2nd Floor, Commerce House-II, Satya Marg, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AAECA8365P

Appellant by : Smt. Sonia Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by : Shri Vipul Bhandari, A.R.

(आदे श)/ORDER

Date of hearing : 30-04-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 07-05-2015

PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M.

1. This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad dated 17.08.2011 for A.Y. 2006-07.

2. On the date of hearing, Assessee vide letter dated 30th April, 2015 had sought adjournment. We find that in the letter, no justified reason for seeking adjournment was stated and therefore we are of the view that Assessee has not made out a case for adjournment and therefore adjournment application is rejected and the appeal is decided on the basis of material on record.

2 ITA No2539/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2006-07

3. Assessee is a company stated to be engaged in the business of export of Information Technology Enabled Services. . Assessee electronically filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 06.12.2006 declaring total income of Rs. 5,526/- and book profit of Rs. Nil after claiming deduction of Rs. 48,63,601/- u/s. 10B of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 17.11.2008 and the total income as per Income Tax Act was determined at Rs. 5,526/- and the profit chargeable to tax u/s. 115JB was determined at Rs. 35,76,116/-. While framing the aforesaid order, the claim of deduction u/s. 10B was allowed at Rs. 12,87,485/- and the excess claim of deduction was denied and was taxed u/s. 115JB of the Act. On the issue of disallowance of excess claim of deduction u/s. 10B, A.O was of the view that the deduction u/s. 10B was not correctly claimed and therefore Assessee has committed default within the meaning of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act without any reasonable cause. He was further of the view that had the case not been selected for scrutiny, the amount would have escaped assessment and therefore penalty was imposable for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and accordingly vide order dated 20.03.2009 levied penalty of Rs. 4,51,400/- u/s. 271(1)(c). Aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty order, Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 17.08.2011 deleted the penalty.

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following ground;-

1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 4,51,400/-.

5. Before us, ld. D.R. supported the order of A.O. 3 ITA No2539/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2006-07

6. We have heard the ld. D.R. and perused the material on record. We find that ld. CIT(A) while deleting the penalty has given a finding that there was no concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income more so, when the Assessee is an 100% EOU. We further find that ld. CIT(A) given a finding that there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) was not applicable in the present case. Before us, Revenue has not brought any material on record to controvert the findings of ld. CIT(A). We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) and thus this ground of Revenue is dismissed.

7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 07 - 05 - 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- (SHAILENDRA Kr. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad. TRUE COPY Rajesh

Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) - 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad