TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0%, amounting to ₹ 4,10,440/- was imposed. – CIT(A) and ITAT dropped the penalty – held that - We are not impressed with the argument of Mr. Sukant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-revenue, that the issue of bona fide belief based on the advise of the counsel should have been raised before the Assessing Officer and there was no scope for raising such an issue before the CIT (A) because it is an after thought. However, we do not find any merit in the aforesaid submission. It is not unknown that income tax returns are filed through the experts in the Income-tax laws and, therefore, the advise given by the learned counsel can be acted upon with bona fide belief to be correct. There is no rule of law that the aforesaid issue shoul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 002. He sold these shares on 8.9.2003 for a sum of Rs. 50,81,565/-. In another transaction he had purchased 2100 shares of Maruti for an amount of Rs. 2,62,500/- on 4.7.2003. Out of those shares, he sold 1950 shares on 5.9.2003 for an amount of Rs. 5,16,153/-. In the first transaction there was long term capital gain and in the second transaction there was short term capital gain. In the return filed by the assessee-respondent, he claimed that the profit on the sale of shares was exempt under Section 10(36) of the Act. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act and it was held that the assessee-respondent had wrongly claimed the profit on sale of shares under Section 10(36) of the Act. The allegation was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng of particulars of income has been accurately disclosed which are relevant to long term capital gain along with the return of income. The income was claimed as exempt under Section 10(36) of the Act and the provisions were to apply for the first time to the assessment year under consideration i.e. with effect from 1.4.2004 relevant to the assessment year 2004-05. The assessee-respondent had acted upon the advise of his counsel, who was dealing with his tax matters for the last many years. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the view that the question concerning bona fide mistake or belief is more or less a question of fact, which has been decided by the CIT (A) on the basis of the affidavit filed by the counsel. There is no finding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
