TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HIGH COURT ), we find no reason to interfere with the adjudication of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) in deleting the impugned penalties in all the four years under consideration. - Decided against revenue - ITA No. 6516/Del /2014, ITA No. 6517/Del /2014, ITA No. 6518/Del /2014 And ITA No. 6519/Del /2014 - - - Dated:- 13-11-2017 - SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Satendra Pal, Sr. DR For The Respondent : Shri M.P. Rastogi, Adv. ORDER PER BENCH: These four appeals have been filed by the Department and challenge the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) IV, New Delhi in deleting the penalty imposed under section 271 (1) (c) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act, the AO held that the income was from business as the assessee was a trader in shares as against the claim of the assessee that income was from shortterm capital gain. The assessee took the matter to the Ld. CIT (Appeals) who decided the issue against the assessee. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the ITAT who confirmed the view of the AO and of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that the income was to be treated as business income and not as short term capital gain. Thereafter, the AO imposed penalty of ₹ 16,86,000/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This penalty was deleted by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) vide order dated 15/09/2014 and now the Department has approached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 15/09/2014. Now, the Department has approached the ITAT and has challenged the deletion of the penalty by the Ld. CIT (Appeals). 3. The Ld. Senior Departmental Representative submitted that a close look at section 271 (1) (c) of Act along with Explanation 1 thereto would show that in course of any proceedings under the Act, if the AO is satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of income or has furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, such person may be directed to pay penalty. It was further submitted that the quantum of penalty is prescribed in clause (iii) and that Explanation 1 provides that if a person fails to offer an explanation or the explanation offered by such person is found to be false or the explanat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed by the assessee. It was submitted that the transaction details of purchase and sale of shares were duly disclosed in the return of income and it was not a case where the assessee had failed to disclose the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. It was further submitted that assessee was both an investor as well as a trader of shares and during the course of his assessment proceedings, no inaccuracy was found in the details furnished by the assessee. The Ld. Authorised Representative also placed reliance on judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax versus Auric Investment and Securities Ltd reported in 310 ITR 121 (Delhi) wherein the Hon ble Delhi High Court had held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in 322 ITR 158 (SC), the Hon ble Apex Court held as follows A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income. The present is not a case of concealment of income. That is not the case of the revenue either. However, the Ld. counsel for the revenue suggested that by making inaccurate claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income. As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense); the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account. Therefore, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that (page 13 of 317 ITR): 13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271 (1) (c), conditions stated therein must exist. 5.1 The Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Amit Jain (supra) upheld the order of the ITAT upholding the deletion of the penalty by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) on facts similar to the facts in the present appeals. In this case the assessee had declared an income of rupees 2,60,73,558/- from short-term capital gains. The AO, on an interpretation of the relevant provisions and having regard to the nature of transactions treated it as income from business. He also levied penalty under section 271 (1) (c) of the Act to the tune of ₹ 58,45,899/- on the ground that the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
