9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 496X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he sake of convenience. 3. We take up the appeal in the case of Nalin P. Shah (Individual), being I.T.A. No.4780/M/ 2010 for our consideration and the decision will apply mutatis-mutandis to other two appeals. 4. The issue raised in this appeal is against confirmation of penalty of Rs.68,00,000 imposed by the Assessing Officer AO u/s.271(1)(c) of the Incone-tax Act, 1961(Act). 5. Facts in brief are that assessee filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.1.48 Crores and assessment was completed u/s.143(3) on 30.10.2006 at a total income of Rs. 1.52 Crores. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that under the head 'long term capital gain', assessee had declared loss of Rs.4.39 Crores that was inclusive of lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted to provide tax relief to ailing investors of US 64 was not factually correct, that any loss arising out of such asset was to be ignored and no claim of set off of loss/carry forward of the same could be allowed, that loss from a source which is exempt was not an admissible adjustment against any income, that the despite knowing this fact, the assessee had made the claim to set off/carry forward of capital loss on account of US 64, that the income did not always include loss as claimed by the assessee, that it was an established legal position that loss from a source which was exempt was not permitted to be set off/carry forward,that the assessee had claimed the set off/carry forward of loss with the sole intention of reducing its tax li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect claim does not tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars and that to attract penalty, the details supplied in the return 'must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous'. In the matter under consideration facts reveal that details supplied by the assessee did not fall in any of these categories. In these circumstances we delete the penalty levied u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. Appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed. 8. As stated earlier in other two appeals being I.T.A. No.4781/M/2010 in the case of Nalin P. Shah, HUF and I.T.A. No.4783/M/2010 in the case of Manan N shah, facts and circumstances are similar to that of Nalin P. Shah save and except change in figures. 9. Following the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
