9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1935X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue for Assessment Year [AY] 200910 assails the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)45 [CIT(A)], Mumbai, Appeal No. CIT(A)-45/AC 25(3)/ITA 309/2014-15 dated 25/01/2016. The quantum assessment for impugned AY was framed by Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-25(3), Mumbai [AO] on 29/11/2011 u/s 143(3) whereas penalty was levied u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28/03/2014. No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the appeal of the assesse has been dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) himself for the same assessment year on the said issue of treatment of share trading income as business income by the A.O. 4. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat full particulars were furnished in the return of income and there was no concealment of income and mere change of head of income do not justify imposition of penalty. However, not convinced, Ld. AO invoking Explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c), levied penalty of Rs. 60,59,108/- vide order dated 28/03/2014. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee contested the same with success before Ld. CIT(A) vide impugne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO, was assessable under the head business income. However, the basic condition viz. furnishing of inaccurate particulars / concealment of particulars of income so as to attract the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) have remained unfulfilled in the present case. Therefore, penalty was not justified and the stand of Ld. CIT(A) was quite fair & logical and hence, the same do not require any interfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
