9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 1315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 2,25,783/-on the disallowance made u/s 94(7). The appellant prays that the same may please be deleted. Ground No.2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the Ld. Assessing Officer u/s. 271 (1 )(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 33,79,001/- on the reduction in claim of rebate u/s 88E. The appellant prays that the same may please be deleted. Ground No.3: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in commenting that the appellant has not voluntarily offered the disallowance of Rs. 1,42,10,000/- relating to arbitrage fees and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alty of Rs. 2,25,783/- @ 100% of the tax amount sought to be evaded. 3. It was argued by ld. AR that exactly similar issue was dealt by the Tribunal in the case of City Group Global Markets India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.5352/Mum/2009, dated 13-12-2011, wherein penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) for additions made with reference to disallowance made under Section 94(7) was deleted after having the following observations :- "5. In our view this does not attract penalty under section 271(1)(c). First of all the assessee is regularly purchasing and selling shares as part of business activity in large volumes and only in these two cases there is a declaration of dividend and sale of shares immediately thereafter, which attracted the provisions of sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in not examining the provisions of section 94(7) on these transactions. Moreover, though there are disallowances in the course of the assessment proceedings, mere disallowance does not attract penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(C). Accordingly the assessee's ground is allowed. The penalty levied on this disallowance of loss is hereby cancelled." 4. We have considered rival contentions and found that assessee is a share broker and share trader and has offered a total income of Rs. 13,98,55,100. The said income includes profits from share trading of Rs. 8,73,43,276/-. The profit has been resulted from innumerable transactions of purchase & sales of shares, including arbitrage, jobbing etc. During the year under consideration, the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT Mumbai bench in the case of Ramesh Damani, ITA No.1625/Mum/2012, dated 22-8-2014. Respectfully following the judicial pronouncements as discussed above, we do not find any merit in the imposition of penalty addition made with reference to the provisions of Section 94(7). 6. With respect to the penalty imposed on account of addition made for legal and professional fee, we found that quantum additions so made has been restored back by the CIT(A) to the file of AO with a direction to verify the nature of expenditure which is clear from the order of CIT(A), dated 20-11-2009 at pages 6 & 7, para 7.2, 7.2.1 & 7.2.2. In view of the above, penalty imposed in respect of these additions which have been set aside, is also restored to the file of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
