TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (6) TMI 1221
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otice under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee submitted a reply before Assessing Officer that there is no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. During the year, assessee was having income under the head 'Long term capital gains' on sale of shares apart from regular business income. The assessee had paid income tax @ 10% on the income on Long term capital gains. Further, during the course of assessment proceedings, all relevant details were filed before Assessing Officer but the Assessing Officer treated the long term capital gain as income from other sources. The Assessing Officer did not accept contention of the assessee and observed that assessee made wrong claim of long term capital gain in view of the facts discussed in the assessment order and as a result of enquiries made from various Stock Exchanges, Registrar of Companies and various banks, through which cheques have been cleared. The Assessing Officer observed that assessee failed to produce evidence to substantiate the purchase of shares from different companies and also the share brokers failed to produce books of account and original vouchers and supporting documents of purcha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s made through various registered Stock Exchange Brokers and payments have been received by account payee cheques. Copies of the accounts of the brokers alongwith copies of the bills, their PAN number etc. have been filed. The assessee had been maintaining D-Mat Account from where there is documentary evidence in respect of such purchase and sale of shares. Copy of the D-Mat Account and details thereof are reproduced in the assessment order. The Assessing Officer made enquiries from Ludhiana Stock Exchange and maintenance of D-Mat Account by assessee which have been duly confirmed. Existence of the share brokers have been confirmed in their replies. If the brokers failed to produce books of account, no fault can be attributed to the assessee. Shares of the companies are listed at Ahmedabad Stock Exchange and Madhya Pradesh Stock Exchange and the companies are registered with Registrar of Companies. Therefore, it is not a case of concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. The ld. CIT(Appeals) did not accept contention of the assessee and noted that assessee has received accommodation entries claiming the income as long term capital gain. The assessee f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... High Court in the case of CIT Vs Lakhani India Ltd. 324 ITR 73 in which it was held as under: In view of concurrent finding recorded by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that there was no concealment or misrepresentation by the assessee, impugned order setting aside the levy of penalty under s. 271(l)(c) cannot be held to be erroneous and no substantial question of law arises. iii) Decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Krishnan Thyagarajan Sivarama 172 Taxman 334 in which it was held as under: Apart from the fact that there are concurrent findings of two authorities below, the case of the assessee merits acceptance. On a perusal of the records of the case it is found that the assessee had made a full disclosure of all the facts as required by the Revenue and there was no question of any inaccurate particulars having been furnished by the assessee with a view to gaining any advantage. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. 6(i) On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below and submitted that assessee entered into bogus transaction in order to reduce tax liability, therefore, assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs have not produced books of account which is not within the control of the assessee to direct the brokers to produce books of account before Assessing Officer. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Nath Bros. Exim International Ltd. 288 ITR 670 held as under : "The assessee had claimed dividend income as his business income and according to the assessee it was entitled to a deduction under clause (baa) of the Explanation to section 80HHC(4C) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim and imposed penalty. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the assessee had disclosed all the facts, and there-fore even though it had made an erroneous claim which could not be justified in law, that by itself did not attract the penal provisions of the Act. On appeal : to the High Court: Held, dismissing the appeal, that there was full disclosure of all relevant material. It could not be said that the conduct of the assessee attracted the pro-visions of section 271(l)(c). The cancellation of penalty was justified. 8(i) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Amit Jain 351 ITR 74 held as under : The assessee declared an income of Rs. 2,6....