TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 1886X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im as made by the assessee in respect of units of mutual funds. There was no indexation claimed by the company in respect of bonds of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. It is rightly held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Administrator of Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw (2015 (9) TMI 318 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT) that where all details of loss claimed by the assessee was stated in the return of income but was rejected by the Revenue, it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income on the part of the assessee and, therefore, penalty for concealment of income could not be levied. Similar finding also given in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 80 - SUP ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case and in law, the Assessee submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the claim of Long Term Capital Loss on redemption of units of mutual funds being a bonafide claim and further that all facts relating to the claim having been disclosed, no penalty is imposable under the provisions of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and consequently erred in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 50,00,000. 2. Facts in brief: The assessee is an asset management company and manages the investment of LIC Mutual Funds. The income earned by the company is mainly by way of management fees for managing the funds of LIC Mutual Funds. The assessee has invested ₹ 9,45,83,000, on 28th March 2002, an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his return of income since they were not bonds or debentures. There is a specific difference between units of mutual funds on one hand and bonds and debenture on the other. In support of this contentions, the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT v/s Enam Securities Pvt. Ltd., [2012] 345 ITR 64 (Bom.), wherein the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in R.D. Goel v/s Reliance Industries Ltd., [2003] 113 Company Cases 1 (SC) as categorically differentiated between units and bonds and debentures. The question answered was whether non cumulative preference shares fall into the category of bonds and debentures as envisaged by the third ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v/s Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., [2010] 322 ITR 158 (SC) which was referred to in the case of DIT(IT) v/s Administrator of Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw, [2013] 35 Taxman.com 15 (Bom.). 5. The learned Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival contentions and have perused the material available on record. We find that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, imposing penalty on the assessee can be done when there is a concealment of income or when there is furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee in the return of income. On the facts on record, it is absolutely ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respect of units of mutual funds. There was no indexation claimed by the company in respect of bonds of Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. It is rightly held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Administrator of Estate of Late E.F. Dinshaw (supra) that where all details of loss claimed by the assessee was stated in the return of income but was rejected by the Revenue, it would not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income on the part of the assessee and, therefore, penalty for concealment of income could not be levied. Similar finding also given in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held that merely because a claim made by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
