9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 1209X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember) These two appeals by the assessee are preferred against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-8, Mumbai dt. 13.12.12 &7.1.2013 respectively pertaining to assessment years 2009-10 & 2007-08. Both these appeals by the assessee have common ground, therefore, they were heard together and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The common grievance in both the years is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ciding the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08, the Ld. CIT(A) followed his own order for A.Y. 2009- 10. 5. At the very outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that on identical ground of appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, the Tribunal in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2542/M/2012 has deleted the penalty. The Ld. Counsel placed the order of the Tribunal before us. 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y held as under: "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 consideratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wance was made as per the working submitted by the appellant, which has been accepted by the A.O. Also, against the said disallowance, no appeal is filed by the assessee. It is a case of an inadvertent mistake made by the assessee, and the assessee agreed for disallowance at the time of assessment proceedings. Accordingly, no penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act was warranted. Putting these facts to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
