9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1092X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re, under these circumstances, the assessee’s case is not a fit case for being visited with penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 1405/Ahd/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2016 - Shri S. S. Godara, Judicial Member And Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member For the Revenue : Shri Narendra Singh, Sr. DR. For the Assessee : Written Submission ORDER Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member: The Revenue is in appeal before us against the order of ld. Commissioner Income-Tax (Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad in Appeal No. CIT(A)XIV/Wd.8(4) /48/2011-12 , dated 20.04.2012, passed for Assessment Year 2008-09. Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was framed for Assessment Year 2008-09 on 23.06.2011 by Income Tax Officer, W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t forwarded losses. Income was assessed at ₹ 1,30,27,505/-. The assessee could not succeed in quantum appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein the addition of ₹ 1,30,27,505/- was confirmed. No appeal was preferred before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. CIT(A). Thereafter, penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) was framed on 23.06.2011, imposing penalty of ₹ 15,24,180/- for concealment of income of ₹ 1,34,52,600/-. The assessee went in appeal against the order u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act before the ld. CIT(A) who allowed the appeal of the assessee by deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by observing as under:- I have carefully considered the penalty order and the submission made by the appellant during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf given the copy of demat account to the A. O. during the course of assessment proceedings. These events prove the reasonable cause of the appellant. Therefore, the penalty A. O. is directed to be deleted. The ground of appeal is, therefore, allowed. 3. Aggrieved the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the order of the ld. Assessing Officer. 5. On the other hand, ld. Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee made gross investment in 287119 shares of REI Agro Limited for consideration of ₹ 31.71 crores and made payment of ₹ 22 crores from time to time; and further, late payment interest of ₹ 25.05 lakhs was charged by the broker. The appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he investment end outstanding were adjusted against each other. He also submitted that the assessee did not come to know about the profit on sale of shares as there was huge payment to be made to the broker. He also contended that on the assessment of underlying facts and circumstances of the case the bonafide of the appellant cannot be doubted. The ld. Authorized Representative also submitted that the books of accounts of the assessee company are duly audited. Even during the course of audit by qualified chartered accountant, the said gain was not visualized and remained camouflaged in the investment account of shares. He further submitted that in the course of assessment, all the details viz. Copy of demat account, details of purchase and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons of purchase and sales of shares of REI Agro Limited. Further, there is no dispute to the fact that the transactions relating to purchase and sale of shares of REI Agro Limited were entered through registered stock broker and all entries were passed through the investment account. Certainly, the profit and loss portion which was embedded in the transactions of sale of shares shown in the investment account was not bifurcated and further was not shown in the return of income under the head Capital Gains ; but, certainly the transactions were appearing in the regular books of accounts of the assessee. 7. We further observe that Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd (supra) has held that no penalty can be le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial to the computation of his income. Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars carry different connotations. Concealment refers to deliberate act on the part of the assessee. A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio very or suggestion falsi. 8. Respectfully relying on the decisions of Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt Ltd (supra) and T. Ashok Pai (supra), we are of the view that as the purchases and sale transactions were duly reflected in the investment account shown by the assessee in its balance-sheet, but due to inadvertent error, the assessee while submitting its return failed to add the Short Term Capital Gain to its income and the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
