9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1081X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. We may also refer that penalty proceeding are distinct from assessment proceeding. We may note that assessee has made such a claim which was ultimately not allowed. The AO has not brought any new material which may suggest that assessee has concealed any part of his assessable income. The AO has not brought on record as to what facts were unearthed by him which may suggest that the assessee concealed its income. Thus, as per our considered opinion, there was no concealment of income on the part of assessee. Thus, the appeal of the assessee and the penalty levied by AO is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA No.7492/Mum/2012, ITA No.415/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 1-2-2017 - SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Learned Assessing Officer in not allowing to carry forward the Business Loss of ₹ 55,27, 162/ - without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee-company is engaged in the business of trading and investment in Share and Securities, filed return of income for relevant AY on 30.09.2009 declaring total loss of ₹ 63,17,307/-. The assessment was completed on 29.09.2011 u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee claimed dividend income of ₹ 1,27,36,050/- as exempted under section 10(34) of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) on perusal of Pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee without prejudice to his other contention agreed to concede for the entire disallowance. However, the ld AR submitted that his admission is without prejudice and should not be treated used against his admission against assessee in penalty proceedings. 5. We have considered the contention of ld. AR of the assessee. Considering the contention of ld. AR of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. However, we may make clear that there is no estoppel against the law. The appeal of the assessee in penalty proceedings would be considered on its merit. 6. ITA No. 415/Mum/2015, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s sustained by ld. CIT(A) and after order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee was given sufficient opportunity before passing the order. 8. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the order of authorities below. In the return of income, the assessee claimed the deduction of ₹ 55,27,162/- on account of Administrative Expenses, Financial Expenses and depreciation. The AO disallowed the entire claim of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act. The disallowance was sustained by First Appellate Authority (FAA) against which the assessee filed appeal which we have decided vide ITA No. 7671/Mum/ 2012 (supra) .The AO levied the penalty holding that the assessee claimed dividend income of ₹ 1,27,36,050/-. The assessee claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the disallowance was confirmed. Further appeal was filed before the Tribunal and the ld. AR of the assessee while making alternative submission conceded the disallowance as the dividend income of the assessee falls under one head of income and the expenses claimed by the assessee were related with the another head of the income. Neither the AO made the disallowance in accordance with the provisions of Rule 8D nor the ld. CIT(A) examined the legality u/s 14A. However, ld. AR of the assessee to cut short the controversy conceded the disallowance. We have seen that the assessee has merely claimed the expenses which were not allowable under one head of the income. There is no concealment of income or furnishing of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
