TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 858X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was held not to be mala fide - The Tribunal had observed that the assessee had disclosed all the particulars along with the return of income and, it was not a fit case for levy of penalty. - 779 of 2010 - - - Dated:- 8-2-2011 - MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, JJ. Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Senior Standing Counsel for the appellant-revenue. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 31.3.2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench F , New Delhi (in short the Tribunal ) in ITA No. 4435/Del/2009, relating to the assessment year 1994-95. 2. The following substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee filed its return for the assessment year in question, on 23.8.1994 declaring a loss of Rs. 2,51,500/- and thereafter revised return on 30.11.1995 declaring loss of Rs. 8,51,615/-. In the proceedings that were initiated under Section 143 (3) of the Act, the assessing officer under the provisions of Sections 71(2) and 72 of the Act made various disallowances, particularly, the claim of the assessee for setting off of the brought forward business losses of the assessment years 1991-92 to 1993-94 against the capital gains during the current year, vide order dated 27.3.1997. The appellate authority i.e. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) {in short the CIT(A) } also did not agree to the submission made on behalf of the assessee in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 31.3.2010. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the Revenue and have perused the record. 6. The point in issue in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty by holding that the claim of the assessee with regard to set off of unabsorbed business losses against capital gains did not amount to deliberate concealment or furnishing of inadequate particulars. 7. The Tribunal, while deleing the penalty had held as under: We have considered the rival contentions, carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and also deliberated upon the various case laws cited by the learned AR and discussed by lower authorities in their respective orders. From the record, we found that assessee has c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... free securities, will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars so as to attract penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Hon ble Supreme Court in this case after considering the proposition of law laid down in the case of Dilip N. Shoroff- 291 ITR 519 (SC) and Dharmender Textile Processors 306 ITR 277 (SC), held as under: A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opini ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
