IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               (DELHI BENCH `H' : NEW DELHI)

      BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           and
       SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         ITA No.4377/Del./2013
                    (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09)

M/s. Vichara Technology India Pvt. Ltd.,       vs.    DCIT, Circle 17 (1),
E ­ 186, Greater Kailash ­ I,                         New Delhi.
New Delhi ­ 110 048.
      (PAN : AABCV2180N)
      (APPELLANT)                                     (RESPONDENT)

            ASSESSEE BY : Smt. Lalita Krishnamurthy and
                          Smt. Vidhi Agrawal, CAs
           REVENUE BY : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

                   Date of Hearing       : 02.06.2015
                   Date of Pronouncement : 03.06.2015
                                    ORDER

PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JM :

      This appeal, at the instance of the assessee, is directed against the

order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-19, New Delhi dated

28.09.2012. The relevant assessment year is 2008-09.

2.    The assessee has raised five grounds of appeal. All the grounds

relate to solitary issue whether the CIT (A) is justified in confirming the

penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

amounting to Rs.11,09,506/-.






3.    Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows.
                                    2               ITA No.4377/Del./2013

      The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of

software development. For the relevant assessment year, return of income

was filed on 29.09.2008 declaring nil taxable income after claiming

deduction u/s 10B of the Act amounting to Rs.45,78,919/-. In the course

of the scrutiny assessment, deduction u/s 10B of the Act was recomputed.

The deduction was limited to Rs.36,98,354/- as against the claim of the

assessee at Rs.45,78,919/-. The Assessing Officer while recomputing the

exemption u/s 10B of the Act had excluded income from other sources

amounting to Rs.8,80,565/-.     The Assessing Officer was also of the

opinion that to the extent of Rs.8,80,565/-, the assessee had concealed /

furnished inaccurate particulars of its income and penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of

the Act needed to be initiated. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer vide

notice dated 30.12.2010 gave an opportunity to the assessee to show cause

on 14.01.2011 as to why penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act should not be

imposed on Rs.36,98,354/- for the wrong claim of exemption u/s 10B of

the Act. The Assessing Officer after examining the reply of the assessee

imposed a penalty of Rs.11,09,506/-.          The relevant portion of the

Assessing Officer's order computing the levy of penalty reads as follows:-

      "Amount on which penalty is to be imposed :        Rs.36,98,354/-
            Total tax sought to be evaded :              Rs.11,09,506/-
            100% of the tax sought to be evaded :        Rs.11,09,506/-
            300% of the tax sought to be evaded :        Rs.33,28,518/-
                                      3             ITA No.4377/Del./2013

               In view of the above, I therefore impose penalty of
      Rs.11,09,506/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded."


4.    Aggrieved by the levy of penalty, assessee preferred an appeal

before the CIT (A) who vide order dated 28.09.2012 dismissed the appeal

and confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer.

5.    Against the order of the CIT (A), assessee is in second appeal before

us.

6.    Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the computation of the

penalty is wrong and, therefore, the assessee has preferred the rectification

application u/s 154 of the Act before the CIT (A) and same was dismissed

by CIT (A) and on further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal vide its

order dated 28.01.2014 in ITA No.4125/Del/2013 restoring the matter to

the CIT (A) for recomputing the correct amount of penalty. Ld. Counsel

for the assessee submitted that since the figure of penalty that is imposed is

not disputed, this appeal also needs to be restored to the CIT (A) for de

novo consideration.






7.    Ld. DR did not have any objection for this appeal being restored to

the CIT (A).

8.    We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on

record. The Tribunal in ITA No.4125/Del/2013 (supra) had restored the

assessee's levy of penalty with regard to the computation to the file of the

CIT (A). Since both the parties are in agreement that this appeal also is to
                                        4              ITA No.4377/Del./2013

be restored to the file of the CIT (A). We direct the CIT (A) to reconsider

the issue of levy of penalty as also correctness of the computation of the

same. It is ordered accordingly.

9.      In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

purposes.

     Order pronounced in open court on this 3rd day of June, 2015.



                 Sd/-                                   sd/-
            (N.K. SAINI)                         (GEORGE GEORGE K)
        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                         JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated the 3rd day of June, 2015
TS


Copy forwarded to:
     1.Appellant
     2.Respondent
     3.CIT
     4.CIT(A)-19, New Delhi.
     5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.
                                                                AR, ITAT
                                                              NEW DELHI.