9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngly we do not find any substance in this objection of the assessee. Levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is proper and justified as it is a case of furnishing of incorrect particulars of income by making a claim of business loss as against the speculative loss not permissible under the provisions of the Act. Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the CIT(A) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. - Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Judicial Member And Shri B.M. Biyani, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ajay Tulsiyan Ms. Ruchira Singhal, ARs For the Revenue : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC) Delhi arising from the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 13,80,000/-, That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied is wrong, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed out on the stock exchange through the registered broker and therefore, once the assessee itself has withdrawn the claim of set off loss in the revised computation as speculative loss it cannot be a case of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of particulars of income. Thus he has contended that the initial claim of business loss was due to the confusion about the definition of speculative loss provided u/s 43(5) and further amendment of Clause-e to the said sub-section by Finance Act 2/2013 w.e.f 1.4.2014. Hence it was a bona fide claim of the assessee. He has further submitted that the entire loss of Rs. 44.57 lakhs was incurred in the month of April 2013 and therefore, it cannot be planned to set off against the unpredictable future business loss. Thus the Ld. AR has submitted that treating the claim of the assessee as bogus by the Assessing Officer is a highly debatable issue having no tax impact as the assessee itself has withdrawn the claim of set off of this loss against the business income. The Ld. AR has submitted that the A.O has levied the penalty by relying on explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) whereas at the most it is a case of furnishing incor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T 403 ITR 407 (Madras). (ii)The SLP filed by the assessee was also dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, 259 Taxman 220(SC). 4.1 He has also relied upon the impugned order of the CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions and relevant material on record. The assessee has not disputed the fact to the extent that the transactions carried out on MCX resulting loss of Rs. 44,57,310/- are speculative transactions. It is manifested from the details of the transactions which are reproduced by the A.O in the assessment order that all these transactions are intra day transactions with no delivery and the purchase and sale of the particular commodity is within the difference of few seconds therefore, there is no dispute on this fact that the loss of Rs. 44,57,310/- claimed by the assessee in the return of income as business loss is a speculative loss and impermissible to set off against the business income. 5.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee has contended that the assessee has suo-moto withdrew the claim before the A.O issued show cause notice. However, we find that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and A.O issued notice u/s 143(2) of the Act on 21.09.2015 and show ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as well as CIT v/s Auric Investment 310 ITR (supra) would not help the case of the assessee. 6. The next contention of the Ld. AR is regarding validity of initiation of proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequential penalty order. The Assessing Officer has recorded his satisfaction in the assessment order in para 4.9 as under: 4.9 Thus, in view of above analysis regarding losses booked on NMCE platform it is ample clear that the losses obtained by the assessee on NMCE Platform are contrived and preplanned losses which are incurred by executing the synchronized trades. The losses are incurred with a specific intention to reduce the taxable income by setting off the same against the profit earned from business activities other than trading on NMCE. Therefore, the losses incurred by the assessee at NMCE platform of Rs. 44,57,310/- is disallowed and added back to the total income. As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars, penalty proceedings is initiated u/s 271(1)(c) separately . [Emphasis supplied by us] 6.1 Thus it is manifested from the satisfaction recorded by the A.O that the penalty was to be initiated for furnishing in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
