9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 669X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... while determining the book profits. It was for the first time that for the assessment year 2007-08 onwards, the aforesaid provision became applicable. The plea of the assessee regarding the bona fides has been accepted by the Tribunal. There is nothing to doubt the veracity of the aforesaid findings recorded by the Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 265 of 2013 (O&M) - - - Dated:- 28-1-2014 - MR. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL AND MRS. ANITA CHAUDHRY, JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Inderpreet Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate and Mr. Divya Suri, Advocate JUDGEMENT Ajay Kumar Mittal J.- 1. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n September 30, 2007, declaring a total income of ₹ 1,53,56,681. The total tax computed by the assessee in the computation of income was ₹ 30,42,878. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee was liable to pay tax under the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. Further, Form No. 29B required to be filed under section 115JB(4) of the Act was not filed. The assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38) of the Act on the long-term capital gains on sale of securities/shares. As per the proviso to section 10(38) of the Act, the profit on long-term capital gains was to be added while computing the book profit and tax liability under section 115JB of the Act. The case was selecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inserted with effect from April 1, 2007, the long-term capital gains on shares was to be added while computing the book profit as per the provisions of section 115JB of the Act. The assessee had filed a revised computation only after the concealment was detected by the Assessing Officer on issuance of notice under section 142(1) and section 143(2) of the Act. It was urged that the reliance of the Tribunal on the decision of the apex court in CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC); 230 CTR 320 (SC) was misplaced. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the assessee besides supporting the order passed by the Tribunal submitted that the Finance Act of 2006 amended with effect from April 1, 2007, whereby a provis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revised the computation of income. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty of ₹ 13,58,452 with this finding that the assessee had filed a revised computation of income only after detection of concealment of facts. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has deleted the penalty accepting the contention of the assessee that it had neither concealed the particulars of income nor furnished inaccurate particulars of income and relied on the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts P. Ltd. [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) ; 230 CTR 320 (SC) and of the hon'ble Punjab and Har yana High Court in the case of CIT v. SSP P. Ltd. [2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and expenditure in its return which details in themselves are not found to be inaccurate which cannot be said that the assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars merely because in relation to those particulars as claim for deduction is made which is not accepted. We thus do not find infirmity in the first appellate order on the issue. The same is upheld. The ground is accordingly rejected. 6. It was not disputed that, vide the Finance Act, 2006, a proviso was inserted in section 10(38) of the Act, with effect from April 1, 2007, and prior to the insertion of the aforesaid proviso under section 10(38) of the Act, the long-term capital gains on shares was not required to be included while determ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
