9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. 2. That levying of penalty on share trading transaction which were already been shown in trading and P & L Account, Balance Sheet in return of Income and segregating same from total turnover and treating same as speculative transaction is merely change of opinion as no new evidence, documents have been brought on record by Ld. AO nor by CIT(A), therefore levy of penalty on mere change of opinion is erroneous and may please be deleted. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving finding that assessee could not justify claim of trading lose of shares of Rs. 11,41,070/-. Whereas all these details were submitted at time of passing of assessment and at the time of hearing of appeal before CIT(A). thus order of CIT(A) to such extent is errone ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. He contended that the assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income. He submitted that penalty is levied in respect of the loss incurred in trading of shares treated as speculation loss on the basis that delivery of shares was not taken. He submitted that under the identical facts, Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal after considering the various case laws in the case of Dy. CIT vs. Shree Ram Electrocast (P.) Ltd. (2017) TaxPub (DT) 2138 (Kol-Trib). Ld. Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 0212, Ld. Counsel further placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee by the various judicial pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for the assessee including those which have been relied upon by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order while cancelling the penalty imposed by the assessing officer under section 271(1)(c). In one of such cases, namely SPK Steels (P) Ltd. (Supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court that penalty under section 271(1)(C), as not exigible in respect of disallowance of assessee's claim for set off of share trading loss by treating the same as speculative in nature as per Explanation to section 73 on the basis of preliminary details furnished by the assessee along with the return of income as the assessee could not be said to have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concerned, the facts of the aforesaid decision were totally different. In that case certain item of expenditure were disallowed by the assessing officer on the allegation that the expenditure was not substantial by any evidence and that the claim was made only to defraud the revenue and this finding was confirmed in the quantum proceedings. These findings were the basis for imposing penalty. The Tribunal therefore came to the conclusion that the finding in the quantum proceedings justified the imposition of penalty. As we have already seen that in the present case there is neither allegation of the assessee attempting to defraud the revenue nor is there any allegation that the loss in question was not actually sustained by the assessee. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
