TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 240X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessee withdrew its claim just in order to avoid litigation with Department. But when the Department intended to impose a penalty upon the assessee u/s 271(1)(c), the assessee has contested the issue in the penalty proceeding. AO instead of entertaining the arguments on merit summarily rejected it on the ground that all these issues must have been raised during the assessment proceedings and must have been rejected. He observed that this penalty proceeding cannot take the character of assessment and cannot sit in judgment. It is pertinent to observe that the addition is only on the admission of the assessee that it withdrew its claim. Nowhere, it has been demonstrated that the claim of the assessee was false or bogus. Explanati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts solitary grievance is that ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in upholding the levy of penalty amounting to Rs.1,94,760/- by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company has filed its return of income electronically on 24.08.2012 declaring total income of Rs.1,06,120/-. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter received information from DDIT (Investigation), Unit-7(3), Mumbai exhibiting the fact that certain entry providers and hawala operators involved in providing entries of bogus LTCG, STCL and bogus business loss. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter issued notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. In response to this show-cause notice, the assessee file ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.5,24,170/- Assessed total income Rs.6,30,290/- 4. Accordingly he disallowed the claim of loss amounting to Rs.5,24,170/-. The ld. Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceeding for furnishing inaccurate particulars. In response to the notice received under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c), the assessee has filed written submission. It contended that it is engaged in the trading of shares and this investment was made through broker in a recognized Stock Exchange. Payment and receipt is through banking channel. Documentary evidences for transactions like contract note, demat statement and bank statement were filed. On these detailed evidences, the ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 93/MUM/2013 in the case of Shri Rameshkumar D. Jain vs.- ITO, ITA No. 367/AHD/.2023 in the case of Dinesh Kumar Kanjibhai Patel HUF and ITA No. 1301/DEL/2018 in the case of Deepty Agarwal vs.- ITO. 8. On the other hand, ld. D.R. relied upon the order of ld. Assessing Officer. 9. We have duly gone through the facts of the present case. A perusal of the assessment order would reveal that ld. Assessing Officer has nowhere demonstrated as to how the loss claimed by the assessee is bogus. He only issued a show-cause notice and the Assessee withdrew its claim just in order to avoid litigation with Department. But when the Department intended to impose a penalty upon the assessee under section 271(1)(c), the assessee has contested the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
