TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 1238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue authorities even if that order was made u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Till date neither the assessment of A.Y. 2008-09 has been reopened nor any revisionary action u/s. 263 of the Act have been taken by the Commissioner. Considering all these facts in totality, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(A). Appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA Nos. 2960 & 3028/Mum/2014 - - - Dated:- 28-10-2015 - N. K. Billaiya, AM And Amarjit Singh, JM For the Appellant : Shri A K Srivastava For the Respondent : Shri Jitendra Jain ORDER Per N K Billaiya, AM These are appeals by the Revenue against the very same order of the Ld. CIT(A)-18, Mum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed the entire claim of expenditure and the income from business was assessed at Rs. Nil. The AO simultaneously initiated penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.1. Against this assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee finally accepted the order of the First Appellate Authority and no further appeal was filed. 3.2. With this factual matrix, the AO proceeded with the penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee was asked to explain why an order imposing a penalty on it should not be passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee filed a detailed reply explaining its nature of business vis- -vis holding of shares and the claim of expenditures. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s income which was duly reflected in the books of account and audited profit loss account and balance sheet which were submitted along with the return of income, therefore, the assessee has not concealed any facts and submitted inaccurate particulars of income. The view of the A.0. by treating it as investment and not business income is confirmed by the CIT(A) and even for A.Y. 2010-11, the assessee has also agreed with the decision of the A.O. and CIT(A) and revised its return of income. Thus, the assessee has not concealed the facts, but, the A.O. has taken a different view on the basis of the profit loss account and balance sheet filed by the appellant along with the return of income. It is now well established fact that assessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. We have examined the facts in issues in the light of the judicial decisions relied upon by the representatives of both the sides. 8.1. There is no dispute that the assessee was holding shares of only one company and showing it as stock-in-trade. The shares were purchased in financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09 which is the preceding assessment year to the assessment year under consideration. It is also an undisputed fact that having found no trading activities, the holding of shares were considered under the head investment and accordingly all expenditures claimed by the assessee were disallowed. The major expe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roceedings but that by itself do not prove of filing inaccurate particulars of income when on the same set of facts, there are two possible views and both the views are well supported by a plethora of judicial decisions whether the income to be taxed under the head 'business income' or 'capital gains' 8.3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products has clearly laid down the ratio by any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars . The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed there can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
