9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 1497X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the course of assessment proceedings, when the matter was brought to the notice of the assessee, the assessee accepted the addition regarding loss on sale of car stating that there is an inadvertent error. On the second addition also the assessee claimed that such loss was inadvertent and requested to consider the loss as a speculation loss by applying explanation to Sec. 73. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied a penalty of ₹ 1,01,101/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The AR of the assessee repeated the submissions made before the AO that the first disallowance on loss of car was an inadvertent mistake which was ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (157 ITR 822)(del) l) Impulse India (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 40 ITD 36 (Del) m) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT 40 itd 70 (Bom) n) CIT Vs Smt. Bimla Devi Sharma 192 ITR 482 (Pat) o) Shri Ishar Alloy Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT 68 ITD 117 (Mum) p) CIT Vs STI Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. 247 ITR 426)(MP) q) Harshvardhan Chemicals Minerals Ltd. Vs DCIT 101 Taxation 31(JP) r) CTO Vs Sojat Tyre Co. 74 STC 288 (Raj) s) Panchratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 44 TTJ Ahd 282 t) CIT Vs Devi Dayal Aluminium India Pvt. Ltd. 171 ITR 683 (All) u) Chandrapal Bagga 261 ITR 67 (Raj) v) Nuchem Ltd. 47 ITD 487 w) Mohd. Ibrahim Animulla Vs CIT 131 ITR 680 x) CIT Vs Kadri Mills 96 ITR 378 y) Dwarkaprasad S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c). In this case, the assessee has claimed losses which are clearly not allowable. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is attracted. The case law relied by the AR are distinguishable on facts and all these case laws are prior to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 977 (SC). The claim of the appellant that there was inadvertent mistake cannot be accepted when wit is a fact that the case of the appellant is audited by a C.A. Hence, the Assessing Officer is justified in levying the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is confirmed and appeal on this ground is dismissed. 8. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee Shri Ajay R. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n sale of shares being a capital loss the same cannot be treated as a speculation loss. Hence the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee has claimed loss which are clearly not allowable. 11. We heard both the parties. We find that in the quantum appeal, the assessee has agreed to the addition. Although an attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee to submit before the authorities below as well as before us the said mistake in claiming the loss on sale of car and loss on sale of shares was attributable to human error which had inadvertently occurred, there is nothing on record to support and substantiate the same. The wrong claim made by the assessee was corrected by the assessee as a result of enquir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
