AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) 
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter. 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (8) TMI 653
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). Penalty under dispute was levied by ITO, Ward-15(2) (2), Mumbai u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 28-01-2009. 2. The other appeal of the assessee in ITA No.1686/Mum/2011 is arising out of the order of the learned CIT (A)-26, Mumbai passed in appeal No.CIT (A)-26/IT-113/15(2) (2)/08-09 dated 16-12-2010. In this case, assessment was framed by the ITO, Ward-15(2) (2), Mumbai for assessment year 2005-06 vide his order dated 17-09-2007 u/s 143 (3) of the Act. Penalty under dispute was levied by the ITO, Ward-15(2) (2), Mumbai u/s 271 (1) (c) of the Act vide order dated 12-02-2009. 3. The only issue in the assessee's appeal in ITA No.6195/Mum/2011 for assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal Gain Rs.6,22,582 " The AO disallowed the claim of Long Term Capital loss as well as Short Term Capital Loss brought forwarded on the reason that the assessee is not entitled for claim of Long Term Capital Loss or Short Term Capital Loss because earlier years capital losses which were shown in the return of her father by virtue of clubbing provisions u/s 64(1A) of the Act. Accordingly, he disallowed the claim of Long Term Capital Loss or Short Term Capital Loss which has been arisen in assessment year 2002-03 and 2000-2001 respectively. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT (A) and also before the Tribunal, wherein the disallowance of brought forward losses on account of Long Term Capital Gains and Short....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rd any reason against the very well considered logical decision of my predecessor sustaining the penalty in A. Y. 2005-06. I also endorsed his decision as I do not find any valid reason to differ from it. On facts, it is a case, where the appellant has not disclosed complete and correct particulars of income. The assessee has deliberately withhold the disclosure of most relevant and material fact that her brought forward losses were clubbed and merged with the income of her father in earlier years. Though the assessee had annexed the figures of these losses in computation of income but nowhere this most important fact was disclosed in the said annexure. Therefore, it is a case, where provisions of 271 (1) (c) are clearly attracted. Accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ather assessee's case is totally revenue neutral. According to him, the assessee has filed all the particulars before the AO in respect to claim of loss on both the counts i.e. long term capital gains and short term capital gains. In view of this, learned Counsel for the assessee stated that there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as alleged by the authorities below. He took us through the penalty order of the AO and argued that there is no mention of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the AO in his penalty order and the penalty is levied on wrong claim of set off of earlier year's long term capital gains or short term capital gains, which is a genuine claim but claimed u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ount of long term capital gain or short term capital gain in the AY under consideration and both the assessee as well as her father is in same tax bracket/slab and cannot be said that there is revenue loss rather assessee's case is totally revenue neutral. We also find that assessee has filed all the particulars before the AO in respect to claim of loss on both the counts i.e. long term capital gains and short term capital gains and there is neither concealment nor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income as alleged by the authorities below. We find from the records that the penalty is levied on wrong claim of set off of earlier year's long term capital gains or short term capital gains, which is a genuine claim but claimed under wron....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... penalty proceedings and imposed penalty under Section 2371 (1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In appeal, the CIT (A) upheld the order of Assessing Officer levying penalty. 6. On further appeal, the Tribunal in the impugned order held that the respondent-assessee had in its return of income filed a note with its computation of income disclosing all details about the sale of US-64 units, the loss and resultant carry forward. Further, all details were disclosed in its return of income as is evident from the fact that the assessing officer gathered information about the carry forward loss and sale of units from return filed by the respondent-assessee. The Tribunal held that from the aforesaid facts at the highest it can be said t....