9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 419X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order of CIT(A) is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 5196/DEL/2016 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2018 - SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, PRESIDENT AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Sh. Arun Kishore, CA For The Respondent :Sh. S. R. Senapati, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 29/07/2016 passed by CIT(A)-1, Noida. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- 1. That the Order of Ld. CIT Appeals-1 in Appeal No. 152/2015-16/Noida (AY - 2007-08) DT. 12.07.2016 is illegal, unjust, opposed to facts and suffers from the vice of arbitrary acts. 2. (i) That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e treated the capital gain as long term capital gain, which was originally shown as short term capital gain. The case was selected under scrutiny. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has income from capital gain on sale of shares under Employees Stock Option Plan (ESOP). The Assessing Officer held that the date of purchase of these shares would be the date when the employee exercised his option and consequently, the gain would be short-term capital gain. The AO accordingly assessed capital gain of ₹ 98,49,788/- on sale of ESOP/RSU under the head Short Term Capital Gain as against long term capital gain shown by the assessee. 4. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 was also initiated by issuing notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Ld. AR submitted that all the documents relating to the additions were before the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment proceedings. In fact, while imposing the penalty there is a recorded finding by the Assessing Officer that the assessee s claim to treat part of the capital gain as long term capital gain is a matter of opinion. Thus, the Assessing Officer himself admits that there is a difference of opinion and there is no case for furnishing of inaccurate particulars. As regards additions of ₹ 5,376/- 8,276/- 11,035/-, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a regular tax payer and inadvertently the same was escaped while filing the returns. But the assessee has voluntarily surrendered the said amount before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms; (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently; (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of one's income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 20. We do not agree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
