TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (9) TMI 232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)-XXVIII, New Delhi erred in deleting the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T.Act, 1961 of Rs.29,56,610 for concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars levied by the AO, by accepting only the reasonings provided by the assessee and without considering the detailed findings and the reasonings given by the AO in the penalty order. 2. Whether on the facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was justified in only following and accepting the decisions of the courts so quoted by the assessee without considering the corresponding cases put forth by the AO as a rationale for the conclusions drawn in the assessment order." 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed income tax return for AY 2008-09 on 30.9.2008 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3.2.2002, 12.2.2000 and 20.1.2004 which were exercised on six different occasions by the assessee. The AO concluded the assessment with a finding that the assessee's claim to treat the gain as long term capital gain is disallowed and the same is treated as short term capital gain taxable as normal income @30% and the AO initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act separately. The assessee was called through a notice u/s 274 r/w Section 271 of the Act to show cause why penalty should not be levied upon her. The assessee submitted his reply on 20th June, 2011 and the AO, through letter dated 29.06.2011, passed a penalty order recording his satisfaction that the department has incriminating material with regard to disclosed incom....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning given by the AO in the penalty order. The DR also submitted that the CIT(A) was not justified in only following and accepting the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex and High Courts quoted by the assessee without considering the corresponding facts and circumstances of the present case as put forth by the AO for drawing the conclusions in the penalty order. 7. The assessee's representative before us vehemently contended the above submissions and replied that the assessee took voluntary retirement from her job in July 2007 and also encashed the allotted stock of shares which was allotted to her by the employer i.e. CITI Bank on exercise of CITI Group Employees Stock Option by the assessee. The AR further submitted that after due consultati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat being a single parent of 21 year old daughter, the assessee chose to buy peace of mind by paying tax as levied by tax authorities without debating the issue of period of holding of the stock and the assessee closed the issue by paying the tax with a submission that the department should take the considered view by not imposing any penalties on her. But the tax authorities accepted the tax and also levied penalty on unjustified ground which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). The AR concluded the submissions with a request that looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, specially the economic and social status of the assessee and her conduct before the tax authorities, the penalty was rightly deleted and there was no concealment of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Reported as (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) is squarely applicable wherein the finding of their Lordships is being reproduced as under:- "A glance at the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, 1961 suggests that in order to be covered by it, 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 meaning of the word "particulars" used in section 271(1)(c) would embrace the details of the claim made. Where no information given in the return is found to be incorrect or inaccurate, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. In order to expose the assessee to penalty, unless the case is strictly covered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee has chosen not to contest the issue and surrendered before the tax authorities with the submission that she is ready to pay tax on sale of stock proceed as short term capital gain as assessed by the AO to avoid litigation and to buy peace of mind with additional submission that the tax authorities should take a considered and kind view by not imposing any penalty. But the AO initiated penalty proceedings and imposed penalty which was deleted by the ld. CIT(A) passing the impugned order. At this point, we also follow the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court dated 12.7.2011 in ITA No.340/2010 in the case of CIT-23, Mumbai vs Hemlata Hamilapurkar wherein their lordships held that merely making a wrong claim in the return of income ca....