9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t case. The same is evident from the fact that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11, on identical facts, was dropped by Ld. AO himself vide order dated 24/05/2013, a copy of which is on record. Therefore, penalty was not justified on this count, as rightly held in the impugned order. Penalty on interest reflected in AIR information but which was not offered to tax - HELD THAT:- The explanation as furnished by the assessee that the same was human error since the interest was never received, was plausible one and the penalty was rightly deleted against the same also. Finding the stand of Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order to be quite fair logical, we dismiss the appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A. No.2054/Mum/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 58,860/- e-filed by the assessee on 30/09/2009. The assessee reflected Short Term Capital Losses of ₹ 149.94 Lacs and Long-Term Capital Losses of ₹ 11.90 Lacs. These losses were related to dealing in shares securities. After examining these transactions, Ld. AO came to a conclusion that loss reflected under the head Capital Gains were to be treated as Business losses. Another addition for ₹ 7,863/- was also made in the hands of the assessee, being interest reflected in AIR information but which was not offered to tax by the assessee. The stand of Ld. AO has since been confirmed by Ld. first appellate authority. 3. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder the head capital gains which, in the opinion of Ld. AO, was assessable under the head business income. The issue, as rightly noted by Ld. CIT(A) was highly debatable one and subject matter of numerous litigations. Nevertheless, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c), in our opinion, have remained unfulfilled in the present case. The same is evident from the fact that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for AY 2010-11, on identical facts, was dropped by Ld. AO himself vide order dated 24/05/2013, a copy of which is on record. Therefore, penalty was not justified on this count, as rightly held in the impugned order. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
