2015 (10) TMI 1886

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ows:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessee submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessee submits that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the Assessee has concealed the particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income in so far as its claim of Long Term Capital Loss on redemption of units of mutual funds was concerned and consequently erred in confirming the levy of penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the learned Assessin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hey were also long term capital asset within the meaning of section 2(42A) of the Act and, hence, also eligible for indexation. The assessee also made a loss of Rs. 37,500, on redemption of bonds in Konkan Railway Corporation Ltd. Since these bonds were not eligible for indexation under third proviso to section 48 of the Act, no indexation was claimed by the assessee on these bonds. Therefore, the assessee has, in its return of income, shown indexation of the said LIC Mutual Bond Funds Units and LIC Mutual Funds Short Term Plan Units and at the same time in the same return of income has claimed a loss of Rs. 37,500, in Konkan Railway Bonds without any indexation. The assessee has offered these units of mutual funds for indexation benefit as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cer arrived at a long term capital gain without indexation for Rs. 1,75,71,088, and charged it to tax while the long term capital loss of Rs. 37,500 claimed on the bonds by the assessee was disallowed. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that instead of long term capital gain of Rs. 1,75,71,088, the assessee has claimed long term capital loss of Rs. 37,500, and hence, concealed the particulars of income. The Assessing Officer, on the said disallowance imposed penalty of Rs. 50,00,000 on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) upheld the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The learned Counsel for the assessee, before us, r....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....de or any details supplied were found to be factually incorrect. Hence, prima-facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. There is also no concealment of income in this regard. The only ground as to why the penalty was applied against the assessee because certain claim in his return of income was not accepted by the Revenue. That it is also fact on record as brought out by the Assessing Officer in his order at Page-2 / Para-3 and reaffirmed in learned CIT(A)'s order at Page-9 / Para-2.8 that the assessee company has disclosed full details and particulars of its claim of carry forward of long term capital loss in the return of income. The claim of indexation was a bona fide claim as made by the assessee in....