TMI Blog2015 (5) TMI 1089X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee about head of income under which particular item is to be assessed was and would remain a bone of contention between the AO and the assessee. But such differences should not and cannot result invoking the penal provision of chapter XXI of the Act. See COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus AURIC INVESTMENT AND SECURITIES LTD. [2007 (7) TMI 276 - DELHI HIGH COURT ] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.410/Mum/2011 - - - Dated:- 7-5-2015 - S/Sh. I P Bansal, Judicial Member Rajendra, Accountant Member Revenue by : Shri Premanand J. Assessee by :Shri Pankaj R. Toprani Ms. Krupa P. Toprani Order u/s.254(1)of the Income-tax Act,1961(Act) PER RAJENDRA, AM Challenging the order dt.20.10.2010 of the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEBI fees(56.12 lakhs),brokerage income(1.16 lacs)non-payment of service tax(Rs.2,000) and additional dividend income (Rs.46078).Aggrieved by the order of the AO,the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority(FAA) who confirmed the additions in respect of share trading loss and expenses attributable to such losses. He also confirmed the addition on account of SEBI fees,but directed the AO to allow the same in the year of actual expenditure.Besides,the FAA deleted the addition in respect of brokerage income and directed the AO to verify the other expenses. The assessee challenged the order of the FAA before the Tribunal. Vide its order,dated10.09.2009,the Tribunal restored back the matter to the file of the AO for fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered the submission of the assessee and the penalty order of the AO. He held that in the matter under appeal share trading loss were treated speculative losses, that only head of income has changed, that entire facts were on record, disallowance of proportionate expenses could not be basis for levying penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. Referring to the decision of Aurich Investment and Securities Ltd. (supra)The FAA deleted the penalty levied by the AO. 4.Before us,Departmental Representative(DR)relied upon the order of the AO.Authorised Representative(AR)supported the order of the FAA and argued that the assessee had not concealed its particulars of income, that the AO was not justified levy in penalty just because particular item of in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... During the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2001-02 , the Assessing Officer found that the loss claimed by the assessee was speculative in nature to be adjusted against speculative income only and as the income was assessed at a loss, the loss shown by the assessee could not be adjusted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and imposed penalty. The penalty was cancelled by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and this was upheld by the Tribunal. . there was nothing on record to show that in furnishing its return of income, the assessee had either concealed its income or had furnished any inaccurate particulars of income. The mere treatment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
