TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the levy of penalty of ₹ 1,18,611 u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act? B) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble Tribunal was justified in law in totally ignoring the bone of the contention of the Appellant that though the speculation profit of ₹ 5,54,284/- was not considered in the computation of total income through oversight and by mistake, the same being otherwise eligible for set off against speculation loss of earlier years, there was neither any mala fide intention nor any revenue effect and it was merely a case of a genuine and bona fide mistake, which does not make the appellant l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 16,95,220/-. With respect to nondisclosure of speculation profit of ₹ 5,54,284/-, notice was issued calling upon the assessee to show cause why in view of such speculation profit, the assessee should be held not entitled to carry forward speculation loss of ₹ 16,95,220/-. 3. In response to such query, the assessee contended that said profit was derived from dealing of shares without delivery of shares. Said speculation profit is to be set off against speculation loss of previous year. Same was therefore, not included in the total income. 4. The Assessing Officer however did not accept such a stand and held that profit of ₹ 5,54,284/- which was not offered for tax is therefore, be added to income of the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment is made at a figure of loss or even if the losses are reduced or even if the assessment is assessed at nil still the penalty is leviable. As regards, the contention of the appellant that it had furnished all the particulars and hence it is not a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars, I do not agree with the appellant. An income has to be shown in the profit and loss account. In this case, it is not the contention of the assessee that in the computation of income this amount was shown or that it is a question of claim. This is clearly a taxable income, which the assessee should have shown in the P L account. It is settled law that if effort is required to find any entry then it cannot be said that the entry was disclosed. Henc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laim is not found to be bona fide, it would be difficult to say that he would still not be liable to penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the present case also this is not explained by the assessee as to who committed the oversight resulting in failure to add this amount in question as income in the P L account and in the computation of total income. It is also not explained as to how and under circumstances, the oversight occurred and why it was not detected by the person who checked the income tax return when it was filed. Under these facts, we find that this judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court is squarely applicable in the present case and by respectfully following this judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account. The assessee had not admitted the same as a mere mistake as is being sought to be suggested before us. In the original assessment, the assessee contested the revenue's stand that same ought to have been offered to tax. As already noted, assessee's contention was that such amount was not required to be reflected in profit and loss account. It was nowhere contended then that same was a mere mistake and that same be permitted to be corrected, unlike in case before the Supreme Court in case of Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd.(supra), wherein the assessee had at the very outset and immediately admitted the mistake. In the present case, the assessee had contested the case on merits before the Revenue authority. Section 271(1)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
