9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 619X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hed any inaccurate particulars of such income, just on account of the treatment of business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant the inference of concealment of income.we are of the view that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. - ITA NO. 1348/DELHI/2004 - - - Dated:- 11-12-2009 - SHRI DEEPAK R. SHAH, AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JJ. Represented By: Shri Ved Jain and Ms. Rano Jain for the Appellant. Shri Kishore B. for the Respondent. Shri George Mathan, Judicial Member This appeal by the assessee has been preferred against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-XII, New Delhi, in Appeal No. 72/2003-04 dated January 27, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. It was the submission that the assessee had not succeeded in the appellate proceedings and at present the appeal was pending before the hon'ble High Court of Delhi. It was the submission that the Assessing Officer had initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee had also replied to the show-cause notice issued. It was the submission that the issue as to whether the loss was speculation loss or a business loss was highly debatable issue and on such debatable issue no penalty was leviable. It was the further submission that the details of share purchased and sold was also available in the accounts as filed before the Assessing Offi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sing Officer and as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was liable to be deleted. 4. In reply, the learned Departmental representative submitted that the Explanation to section 73 was clear and there was no bona fide explanation provided by the assessee. It was the submission that the penalty as confirmed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was liable to be upheld. He vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the computation of total income and the details filed with the return as found at pages 1 to 28 of the paper book, clearly shows that the assessee has placed all the details ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in furnishing its return of income the assessee has concealed his income or furnished any inaccurate particulars of such income, just on account of the treatment of business loss as speculation loss by the Assessing Officer does not automatically warrant the inference of concealment of income. Here as it is noticed that the facts in the assessee's case are identical to the facts of the case in the case of Auric Investment Securities Ltd. (supra). In the circumstances respectfully following the decision of the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Auric Investment Securities Ltd. (supra) we are of the view that the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not exigible. In these circumstances, the penalty as lev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
