2014 (5) TMI 996

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms Inc USA. The assessee had sold 18,155 shares allotted under ESOP Scheme during the assessment year 2007-08 and earned a capital gain of Rs. 45,15,285/-. Accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued. The assessee was required to furnish the details along with necessary evidences in this regard. From the details furnished by assessee, it transpired that assessee had treated the sale consideration received by way of foreign inward remittance from the parent company as long term capital gain and tax @ 20%. 2.1 The AO was of the opinion that since the shares were sold on the same date on which assessee exercised its option to acquire the shares by making payment, therefore, this was a case of short term capital gain and not long term capital gai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tter with the appellant very carefully. The appellant has borne great hardship by the interpretation adopted by the AO and has had paid an additional tax of Rs. 7,71,636/- simply to avoid further litigation, although the stock options sold in his hands had vested with him for more than 12 months and were in fact long term in nature. Since the appellant had paid an additional tax and had not concealed any income or particulars whatsoever, and the final income assessed in assessment order is the same as that originally submitted by the appellant, I did not find any merit in imposition of penalty. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I delete the penalty imposed of Rs. 5,29,663/- u/s 271(1)(c) on the appellant." 5. Being agg....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the reasons recorded for reopening the case. He subjected the long term capital gain declared by the assesse as short term capital gains due to which assessee was required to make the payment of 7,71,636/- as additional tax simply to avoid any further litigation although the stock options sold in his hands had vested with him for more than 12 months and were in fact long term in nature. Therefore, the moot point for consideration is whether assessee had concealed the particulars of its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in order to attract the penalty provision u/s 271(1)(c). We find that assessee had treated the entire capital gain as long term capital gain for the reason that ESOPs remained vested with him for more t....