9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, Assessing Officer was not definite in his conclusion and finding as to on which account penalty should be imposed against the assessee. May be the addition on merit have been confirmed considering the long term capital gain to be income from other sources, but the facts clearly disclose that it is not a fit case of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 698/Chd/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-8-2016 - SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI MAHARISHI PRASHANT KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sudhir Sehgal For The Respondent : Shri Man ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cided the penalty matter in respect of S/Shri Rajnish Thakur and Ram Pal Thakur (assessee). In the case of Shri Rajnish Thakur, I.T.A.T., Chandigarh Bench(SMC) in ITA No.697/Chd/2015 vide order dated 17.6.2016 cancelled the penalty on identical facts. The order in paras 7 to 11 is reproduced as under : 7. I have considered rival submissions and material on record. The facts noted above are not in dispute that assessee in the return of income has disclosed complete transaction of sale of shares and also disclosed earning of long term capital gain on sale of shares in a sum of ₹ 11,25,000/- which is the basis of levy of the penalty against the assessee. The assessee, thus, disclosed complete facts and details not only in the return ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthorities below as income from undisclosed sources. 8. The authorities below also made addition against the assessee because the brokers have not produced books of account which is not within the control of the assessee to direct the brokers to produce books of account before Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. 288 ITR 670 held as under : The assessee had claimed dividend income as his business income and according to the assessee it was entitled to a deduction under clause (baa) of the Explanation to section 80HHC(4C) of the Income tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and imposed penalty. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal was not in error in deleting the penalty . 9. Since assessee disclosed complete facts in the return of income as well as at the assessment stage and all the transactions are carried out through D-Mat Account and banking channel, therefore, it may not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to levy the penalty against the assessee. The decisions relied upon by ld. counsel for the assessee also support the case of the assessee that it is not a fit case of levy of penalty. Further, the Assessing Officer in the assessment order initiated the penalty proceedings for concealment of income but in the penalty order, Assessing Officer levied the penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
