TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 212X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e and purchase of shares as capital gain cannot be treated as impossible view or absolutely illegal and incorrect treatment of income. Even for the subsequent year i.e. AY 2006-07, the income admitted by the assessee as capital gain was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue of treatment of the income is a debatable issue and the view taken by the assessee in treating the same as capital gain, though was not acceptable but could not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the assessee concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, the penalty is not justified in the facts of the present case. Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. - ITA No. 2172/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A); but could not succeed. 3 We have considered the rival contention as well as the relevant material on record. In this case the assessee declared the income of ₹ 1,01,85,887/- which was claimed as short term capital gain. The Assessing Officer treated the income from purchase and sale of shares as business income and accordingly shown the total income of the assessee at ₹ 1,02,42,338/-. Thus, it is clear that as far as the quantum of income as declared by the assessee and finally assessed by the Assessing Officer is concerned, there is no change except some minor disallowance of loss on account of speculative loss by the Assessing Officer. Thus the penalty has been levied by the reason of treatment of capital gain declared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities in the year under appeal, which is based on the facts and circumstances as prevailing in the year under appeal. There is no discussion in the assessment order for assessment year 2006-07 about the transactions taking place in that year. Therefore, the said assessment order, in our view, does not affect the decision of the revenue authorities in the year under appeal. Finding no merit in this appeal of the assessee, we dismiss the same. 3.1 Thus, it is clear that even for the subsequent year i.e. AY 2006-07, the income admitted by the assessee as capital gain was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the issue of treatment of the income is a debatable issue and the view taken by the assessee in treating the same as capit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
