AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 959
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....following grounds of appeal: - "On the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-25 has 1. Erred in confirming the penalty levied U/s. 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,14,970/-. 2. Erred in not considering the facts that all accurate particulars were filed by the assessee, which even resulted in the same office of CIT(A)-25 approving transaction as Long Term Capital Gain. Payment of Security Transaction Tax (STT) is the liability of Broker and assessee has to rely on the bills received from the Broker. Even Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has approved the order of CIT(A)-25. 3. Erred in not considering the facts that it was not a willful concealment.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tire transaction of acquisition of the said shares and subsequent sale thereof was found to be sham. The A.O. thus on the basis of his aforesaid observations brought to tax the entire sale proceeds of the shares of M/s Talent Infoway Ltd. (supra) under the head 'Income from other sources'. 3. The assessee being aggrieved with the assessment therein carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his order dated 25.02.2010 therein held that the assessee had carried out genuine purchase/sale transaction of shares of M/s Talent Infoway Limited, and as such the profit arising therefrom was in the nature of LTCG in the hands of the assessee. The CIT(A) however observed that since the aforesaid transactions were off-market transaction....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... real income exigible to tax, and had also furnished inaccurate particulars of its income, therefore upheld the order of the A.O. imposing penalty in the hands of the assessee under Section 271(1)(c) and dismissed the appeal. 6. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) therein upholding the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) in the hands of the assessee, had thus carried the matter in appeal before us. That during the course of the hearing of the appeal it was at the very outset submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R.') for the assessee that the genuineness of the Purchase/Sale transaction of the shares of M/s Talent Infoway Limited was not in doubt and had been accepted by the CIT(A). It was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the latters wife Smt. Radhika Devi Toshniwal, it was beyond comprehension that the assessee was oblivious of the fact as regards a non-payment of STT in respect of the shares of M/s Talent Infoway Limited. It was further submitted by the ld. D.R. that the assessee despite being aware that the aforesaid transactions being off-market transactions had not been subjected to STT by the broker and thus not eligible for claim of exemption under Section 10(38), had however intentionally raised a wrong claim for exemption while filing her return of income, and thus was clearly liable for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). The Ld. D.R thus submitted that the appeal of the assessee was devoid of any merit and was thus liable to be dismissed. 7. We h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11,09,784/-claimed by the assessee in respect of the aforesaid scrips, viz. M/s Talent Infoway Limited under Section 10(38) having not been found to be in order, for the reason that the same being off-market transactions had not been subjected to STT, as a fall out of which the LTCG emerging on the sale of the said shares did not satisfy the requisite conditions contemplated under Section 10(38). Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that though there can be no second thought as regard the exigibility to tax of the LTCG pertaining to the sale of the scrips of M/s Talent Infoway limited (supra), but then in the backdrop of the fact that the assessee had made a complete disclosure of the entire set of facts and figures relatable t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....8), cannot in itself lead to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c). That our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts (Ltd.) (2010)322 ITR 158, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars. The assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part. It was up ....