9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two views are possible and the assessee has taken one of the possible views but the AO has not agreed to that view that itself is not a ground for levy of penalty. The view taken by the assessee in this case is one of the possible views and the issue was also debatable hence, under such circumstances it cannot be said that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income to conceal her income. In favour of assessee. - ITA No.:1653/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 8-5-2013 - Shri D. Karunakara Rao And Shri Sanjay Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Yadav For the Respondent : Mr. Balan Narayanan ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, JM : This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.01.2012 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g term capital loss at Rs.1,62,52,952/- against 3,36,50,113/- as was claimed by the assessee. Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the assessee. During the penalty proceedings, the AO held that by wrongly computing the Long term capital loss the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of her income. He further observed that had the case of the assessee not been selected for scrutiny, the incorrect computation of Long term capital loss claimed by the assessee would have been escaped and the assessee would have been benefited by adjusting the said loss in the subsequent years. The AO further observed that the assessee did not file any appeal against the order of assessment and as such accepted the assessment order and thereby the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssible views. The learned CIT(A) further observed that the view adopted by the assessee in the case in hand is not only the possible view but such a view has been upheld to be correct by the jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of Manjula Shah in Income-tax Appeal No.3378 of 2010 dated 11.10.2011. He further observed that merely because the assessee has not filed an appeal against the assessment order that itself does not mean that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of income. In fact, the AO had allowed Long term capital loss at Rs.1,62,52,952/- against the claim of the assessee at Rs.3,36,50,113/-. The said capital loss could have been carried for a period of 8 years to be adjusted against Long term capital gain, if ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
