9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 706X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with section 254C of the Act. The penalty under dispute was levied by the ITO, Ward- 2(2) (2), Mumbai u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 29-03-2006. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of the CIT (A) confirming levy of penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act amounting to Rs. 20,04,501/-. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in investment and also in share trading. The assessee has claimed trading loss on account of purchase and sales of share of other companies at Rs. 50,12,977/- as business loss but, the AO treated the same as speculation loss in accordance to Explanation to Section 73 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cer at the time of assessment proceedings as well as by the CIT (A) at the appellate stage, resulting in dismissing the appeal. Therefore, it is a fit case for levy of penalty under section 271 (1) (c)". The learned Counsel for the assessee argued that the AO himself is not sure of charge whether the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income or concealed the particulars of his income. According to him, it means that the AO himself is not satisfied about the specific charge. As far as the penalty u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act on merits is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee relied on the decision in the case of ACIT Vs Sudarshan Fiscal Services (P.) Ltd. reported in (2010) 41 ITR (Trib.) 0532 wherein on exactly identi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me treating t he same as normal business loss. The penalty imposed by the AO under s. 271 (1) (c) however was held to be not sustainable by the learned CIT (A) as well as by the Tribunal and when the matter reached the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, it was held by their Lordships that, mere treatment of the business loss as speculation loss by the AO does not automatically warrant inference of concealment of income. It was held that the assessee having filed full details of sale of shares, it cannot be said that any particulars of his income were concealed by him so far as his computation of income was concerned. As the issue involved in the present case as well as all the material facts relevant thereof are similar to that of the case of CIT Vs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
