TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 682X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the argument of the assessee that he has not indulged into any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The findings of AO are unwarranted that he is in organized business activity but only in this year held the transaction of derivative activity as business. The ld. Counsel for the assessee before us filed complete details of transactions relating to derivative transactions/activities. In view of the above explanation and by going through the case records, we are of the view that the Revenue has not been able to controvert the explanation of the assessee or same is held to be false. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty and accordingly the penalty is deleted. - Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pital gain to business income in the quantum assessment. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income for the reason that assessee had disclosed derivative transactions as capital gains instead of business income. The Assessing Officer levied the penalty despite the fact that assessee filed explanation that he actually was of the view that the entire activity of share market is to be treated as capital gain either short term or long term . But AO has not accepted the explanation of the assessee and levied penalty for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income u/s.271 (1) (c ) of the Act. CIT(A) also confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, now assessee is in appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for change of head of income and consequent claim of exemption was deleted. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Bennett Coleman Co. Ltd. 259 CTR 383(Bom.) has held that the AO considered the premium received on redemption of debentures to be taxable under the head income from other sources while the assessee considered the same to be taxable under the head capital gains and Hon'ble High Court held that there is only change of head of income and in the absence of any evidence that the claim of the assessee was not bonafide, Tribunal has rightly deleted the penalty. The related finding of Hon'ble High Court in para-3 reads as under:- 3. So far as question (ii) is concerned, the respondent- assessee had claimed premium ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal is perverse. In these circumstances, we see no reason to entertain the proposed question (ii). 5. We find that the above, that the assessee has declared the income arising out of derivative transaction activity as short term capital gain as against assessed by AO as business income. For this assessee has filed an explanation that assessee was under bonafide belief that the entire activity of share trading earns only capital gain and not business income. It was also the argument of the assessee that he has not indulged into any concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The findings of AO are unwarranted that he is in organized business activity but only in this year held the transaction of de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
