9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red in deleting the addition of Rs.30,42,215/- being interest on unsecured loan? 3. Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs.51,983/- being penalty expenses?" 2. We have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Manish Bhatt for the Revenue and examined the record. 3. So far as the first question is concerned, we notice that the Assessing Officer had disallowed the loss claimed in MCX transaction. When this was challenged before the C.I.T. (Appeals), it had deleted such addition. On the ground that since the issue is covered by assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07, the Tribunal also held the issue in favour of the assessee. We have noticed that for the assessment year 2006-07, when t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal below held that these transactions were of an integrated nature and were entered into to guard against future losses and, therefore, came within the exception to Section 43(5) of the Act. In such circumstances, we find that the Tribunal below was quite justified in upholding the finding recorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the loss could not be said to be a speculation loss. We find that no substantial question of law is involved on the above question." The first question, therefore, needs to be answered accordingly in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, and as such, deserves no consideration. 4. The second issue pertains to deletion of addition of interest on the unsecur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nfirmed. Accordingly, the issue deserves no further consideration. 6. The third question pertains to disallowance of penalty expenses on shortage of sum of Rs.51,983/-. It was contended before the CIT (Appeals) that penalty expenses were levied on business transactions, and not for violation of the statute. The CIT (Appeals) had accordingly deleted the penalty on the ground that such proceedings had not crystalized. 7. The Tribunal on the ground that the nature of penalty was not explained by the Assessing Officer held that the penalty was on the business transaction and not for violation of statute concurring with CIT (Appeals). This issue also does not require any consideration only on the smallness of assessment. Tax Appeal resultantly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
