2012 (6) TMI 837

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... : The only ground raised in these appeals by the Revenue is against the cancellation of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 2,50,102/- and Rs. 15,69,445/- for AY 2004- 05 and 2002-03 respectively. 2. Since the facts of both the years are identical except variation in the quantum, we shall discuss herein the facts relating to AY 2004-05. 3. The assessee is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... being the difference between the tax as short term capital gain and tax as long term capital gain on the sum of Rs. 11,36,829/-. The learned CIT(A) cancelled the penalty. Hence, the Revenue is in appeal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed before us. From the facts of the case, it is evident that the only dispute is whether the income from sale of stock options is a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere taking of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars." 5. In the assessee's case, evidently, there is no furnishing of any inaccurate particulars. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X