2013 (8) TMI 496

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... esh Joshi For the Respondent : Shri D. S. Sundersingh/Guruswamy Smt. Kusum Ingale ORDER Per Rajendra,AM: These appeals are filed against separate orders of CIT(A)-25,Mumbai all dated 20.4.2010 for the assessment year 2004-05 with regard to confirmation of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961. 2. Since common issue is taken in all these appeals, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 3. We take up the appeal in the case of Nalin P. Shah (Individual), being I.T.A. No.4780/M/ 2010 for our consideration and the decision will apply mutatis-mutandis to other two appeals. 4. The issue raised in this appeal is against confirmation of penalty of Rs.68,0 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Act. 5.1. Assessee filed appeal before FAA.After considering the submissions of the assessee,FAA, held that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the assessee has sustained some loss, that the Finance Act,2003 introduced section 10(33) by exempting income on transfer of units of US 64,that before insertion of section 10(33)income received in respect of units was exempt, that claim made by the assessee that provisions of section 10(33) were inserted to provide tax relief to ailing investors of US 64 was not factually correct, that any loss arising out of such asset was to be ignored and no claim of set off of loss/carry forward of the same could be allowed, that loss from a source which is exempt was not an admissible adjustment a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ee had disclosed all the details about sale of units of US 64.AO had gathered the information about the said sale and loss/carry forward from the return filed by the assessee. In these circumstances in our opinion it cannot be held that the assessee had filed inaccurate particulars of his income. We are of the opinion that a wrong claim made by an assessee is not filing of inaccurate particulars/ concealing of income. Now it is settled law that making an incorrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and that to attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous . In the matter under consideration facts reveal that details supplie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X