TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 142X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat- dismissing the appeal as change of treatment from business loss as claimed by the assessee to speculative loss as determined by the Assessing officer, the Tribunal was of the view that a mere change of treatment of the loss would not amount to concealment under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. - 363 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 6-4-2010 - BADAR DURREZ AHMED and V. K. JAIN JJ. Ms. Sonia Mathur with Sumit Kr. Singh for the appellant. K. R. Manjani for the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by 1. BADAR DURREZ AHMED J.— We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present appeal, preferred by the Revenue, is directed against the order dated April 30, 2009, passed by the Income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court in the case of CIT v. Auric Investments and Securities Ltd. [2009] 310 ITR 121. 6. With regard to the amounts of Rs. 4 lakhs and Rs. 19 lakhs, the Tribunal examined the factual position and came to a conclusion on determination of the facts that there was no concealment made out under section 271(1)(c) of the said Act. 7. In so far as the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs is concerned, the Tribunal found that it cannot be said that the explanation given by the assessee was not bona fide and it also cannot be said that all the facts and material relating to the same had not been disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal made this observation in view of the facts that the party who had extended the amount of Rs. 4 lakhs to the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... address of M/s. Model Trading Co. which create serious doubt about the genuineness. It is further found that in the bank account of M/s. Model Trading Co. cash of Rs. 25 lakhs was deposited. On this basis, the addition made may be justified but it cannot be said that the explanation of the assessee was not bona fide and hence as discussed in the above paras regarding loan of Rs. 4 lakhs, for this loan of Rs. 19 lakhs also, Explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) is not applicable and hence for this loan also, the Assessing Officer is doubting the source of source which cannot be the basis for imposing penalty." 9. We find that in so far as the question of penalty relating to the change of treatment from business loss to speculation loss is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
