2006 (3) TMI 122 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved: Assessment of loss on account of sale of shares, disallowance of losses by Assessing Officer, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deletion of penalty by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), affirmation of deletion of penalty by Tribunal.

Assessment of loss on account of sale of shares:
For the assessment year 2001-02, the respondent-assessee declared a loss of Rs. 5,28,942, including a sum of Rs. 1,01,957 towards loss on account of sale of shares. The Assessing Officer disallowed the losses, stating that the assessee had not carried on any business activity during the relevant period and no proof regarding the said loss had been furnished. The order attained finality as no appeal was preferred by the assessee against it.

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Penalty proceedings were initiated resulting in a penalty of Rs. 2,09,006 being imposed upon the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the deletion of the penalty, reasoning that the assessee had not furnished any incorrect particulars and had disclosed the requisite details in the profit and loss account while filing the return. The Commissioner also noted that the assessee was established only to transact business with the Ministry of Defence and could not have sold the imported goods to any other consumer.

Deletion of penalty by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and affirmation by Tribunal:
The Commissioner and the Tribunal concluded that the assessee had not provided incorrect particulars in the return and that the failure to substantiate the claim for deduction of losses did not render the expenses non-genuine. The Tribunal affirmed the deletion of penalty, finding that the assessee had furnished all particulars relating to the expenditure claimed in its profit and loss account and the loss on account of sale of shares.

Court's Decision:
The High Court found no error of law in the concurrent views of the Commissioner and the Tribunal. Since the assessee had provided all relevant particulars, the decision to impose penalty was legally justified. The Court held that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal, which was dismissed.