TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 651X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed the oversight resulting in failure to add this amount in question as income in the P & L account and in the computation of total income. It is also not explained as to how and under what circumstances, the oversight occurred and why it was not detected by the person who checked the income tax return when it was filed. Under these facts, we decline to interfere in the order of Ld. CIT(A). - I.T.A. No.3229 / Ahd/2010 - - - Dated:- 20-10-2011 - Shri T. K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and Shri A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant: Shri Mehul K. Patel, AR For the Respondent: Shri Samir Tekriwal, Sr. DR O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- This is assessee s appeal directed against the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 143(3), an addition of Rs, 5,54,284/- was made in respect of which penalty proceedings under section 271(l)(c) were initiated. The assessee had earned this speculation profit of ₹ 5,54,284/-, which was not shown in the P .L account but was credited to the capital, account. It was also stated by the AO that the assessee had claimed carried forward of speculation loss of ₹ 16,95,220/-pertaining to the assessment year's 2000-01 and 2001-02. In the assessment order, the AO added the speculation profit and disallowed the claim of carry forward of speculation loss in view of the amendment made in the provisions of section 73 (4) with effect from A Y 2006-07. The CIT(A), vide order dated 23/06/2009 stated that the additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . He placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High court rendered in the case of Dahod Sahkari Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. Vs CIT as reported in 282 ITR 321 (Guj.). 6. As against this, Ld. D.R. of the revenue supported the orders of authorities below. He also submitted that Explanation 4 to Section 271(1)(c) is applicable in the present case. He also submitted that although the income remained the same because of the set off of brought forward losses but carry forward of loss was reduced and hence, there is concealment and penalty is rightly imposed by the A.O. He placed reliance on the judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Zoom Communications Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 327 ITR 510 (Del.). Regarding the judge ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total premium paid in earlier years. The same was not offered by the assessee as taxable income in the year of receipt and it was held by the A.O. in that case that the amount of premium paid in earlier year was treated and allowed as trading liability and subsequent receipt of ₹ 68,332/-was liable to be treated as profit u/s 41(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Under these facts, addition was made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. In that case penalty was deleted by Hon ble Gujarat High Court mainly on this basis that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the findings recorded by Ld. CIT(A) to the effect that this was not a fit case for levy of penalty for concealment as no in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961. In the present case also, this is not explained by the assessee as to who committed the oversight resulting in failure to add this amount in question as income in the P L account and in the computation of total income. It is also not explained as to how and under what circumstances, the oversight occurred and why it was not detected by the person who checked the income tax return when it was filed. Under these facts, we find that this judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable in the present case and by respectfully following this judgment of Hon ble Delhi High Court, we decline to interfere in the order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
