9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 903X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in favour of assessee - I.T.A. 6014/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 11-1-2017 - Sh. Rajendra, Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh, Judicial Member Revenue by : Shri Suman Kumar-DR Assessee by : Shri K. V. Beswal Parvesh Advani- (ARs) ORDER Per Rajendra A. M. Challenging the orders dated 20/06/2011 of the CIT (A)-4, Mumbai, the Assessing Officer(AO) has filed the present appeal. Assessee-company, engaged in business of trading nonferrous metals, shares/stocks, filed its return of income on 30/10/2004, declaring total loss of ₹ 78. 29 lakhs. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the Act on 22/12/2006, determining its income at ₹ 80. 35 lakhs. Brief facts: 2. During the assessment proceedings, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, he levied a penalty of ₹ 35 lakhs, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, wide its order dated 26/08/2010. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the FAA. Before him, it was argued that the F AA had partly allowed the appeal, that it had made full disclosure about the sale of shares in the computation of income and the disclosure was based on the legal opinion, that it was not the case of the AO that information was not available on the record, that the assessee had not conceded any particular about the information, that the AO had livid the penalty on the basis of the treatment given in respect of long-term versus short-term capital loss in respect of sale of shares. The size referred to certai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard to nature of the loss, that the chance of the AO of furnishing inaccurate particulars was completely misplaced, that no penalty could be levied because no particulars had been concealed or inaccurate particulars had been filed. Relying upon the judgement of the honorable Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products Ltd. (supra), he deleted the penalty levied by the AO. 4. During the course of hearing before us, the Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of the AO. The Authorised Representative (AR) relied upon the order of the FAA and referred to the cases of Claridges Investments and Finance Private Ltd (ITA/410/Mum/2011-AY. 2003-04, dated 07/05/2015, Bennett Coleman Co Ltd. (ITA(LOD) 2017 of 2012) of Hon ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt Auric Investments and Securities Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the FAA in that matter the claim of business loss was disallowed and it was held that loss was to be assessed under the head speculative loss. The AO levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c)(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. When the matter traveled to the Hon ble High Court, it decided the issue as under: During the assessment proceedings for the AY. 2001-02 , the Assessing Officer found that the loss claimed by the assessee was speculative in nature to be adjusted against speculative income only and as the income was assessed at a loss, the loss shown by the assessee could not be adjusted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
