9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the Assessee for assessment year 2006-07 due to the nature of income declared as short term capital gain on trading in shares. Analysis: The Assessee, an individual deriving income from various sources, declared income from property and trading in shares, with short term capital gain on shares. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed that some shares were traded within a short period, leading to the conclusion that the transactions were of a business nature. Consequently, the AO treated the income as business income instead of short term capital gain, imposing a penalty under Section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) upheld this decision, prompting the Assessee to appeal. Upon review, the Appellate Tribunal found that the AO accepted the income declared by the Assessee, but disagreed with the nature of income declared as short term capital gain. It was noted that the Assessee provided full details of the transactions, including script details and holding periods, through an electronic system with a Demat account. The Assessee contended that the shares were purchased as investments and accounted for as such, although the AO treated them as stock in trade. The Tribunal referenced the decision in Reliance Petro Products case, emphasizing that making an incorrect claim in law does not constitute furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under Section 271(1)(c). Citing various High Court judgments, the Tribunal highlighted that a wrong claim or treatment of income does not automatically lead to penalty imposition. The Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court cases underscored that a wrong claim or treatment is distinct from concealment or providing inaccurate information. The Madhya Pradesh High Court case further supported this notion by upholding the deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for an Assessee engaged in commission agency business. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that there was no merit in the imposition of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) by the lower authorities. Both appeals by the Assessee were allowed, emphasizing the lack of justification for treating the capital gain as business income. The judgment was pronounced on 28th September 2011.
|
