9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable on record and the disallowance of loss is due to wrong interpretation of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act by virtue of which the same is treated as speculation loss. We are of the view that merely treating the business loss as speculation loss by the AO does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, particularly when the assessee has furnished full details of purchase and sales of shares. Even otherwise, we are of the view that the AO himself is not sure of the charge for levy of penalty whether the same is for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. In view of the above, we set aside the orders of the authorities belo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The AO levied the penalty for treating the loss of ₹ 50,12,977/- as speculation loss as against the claim of the assessee of business loss. Accordingly, the AO levied minimum penalty of ₹ 20,04,501/- for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT (A), who also confirmed the action of the AO. Aggrieved, now the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the assessee under bona fide belief made a claim of loss on purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... support of the assessee s case that penalty imposed by the AO under s. 271 (1) (c) in respect of addition made to the total income of the assessee by treating the loss arising from trading in shares as normal business loss instead of speculation loss, is not sustainable on the merits, learned counsel for the assessee has made various submissions and has also relied upon various judicial pronouncements. In one of such cases namely CIT Vs. Auric Investment Securities Ltd. (2009) 310 ITR 121 (Del), a similar issue involving the identical facts had come up for consideration before the Hon ble Delhi High Court. In the said case, a return was filed by the assessee declaring the loss of ₹ 23,05,096. During the course of assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n ble Delhi High Court rendered in the said case and hold that the penalty imposed by the AO under s. 271 (1) (c) was not sustainable. The impugned order of the learned CIT (A) cancelling the said penalty therefore is upheld although on a different ground and this appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed . 5. On the other hand, the learned Sr. DR argued that the assessee has consciously filed inaccurate particulars of income claiming the loss as business loss whereas he was very much well aware that the loss is in the nature of speculative loss in terms of Explanation to Section 73 of the Act. According to him, the orders of the authorities be sustained. 6. We find from the above facts that the AO did not agree with the claim of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
