TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y is a subsidiary of M/s. Nath Seeds Ltd. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer disallowed trading loss of Rs. 8,49,47,027/- and capital loss of Rs. 2,43,06,000/-. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 07-03-2013 levied penalty of Rs. 3,88,13,090/- on both the aforesaid additions. Aggrieved by the order levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). During the First Appellate proceedings the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed levy of penalty on addition of Rs. 2,43,06,000/- and cancelled levy of penalty on addition of Rs. 8,49,47,027/-. The assessee is in second appeal before the T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Shri Vivek Aggarwal representing the Department vehemently defended the orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming levy of penalty in respect of disallowance of capital loss of Rs. 2.43 crores. The ld. DR submitted that the assessee failed to furnish relevant documents in support of loss claimed on sale of investment. The Assessing Officer found the claim of assessee fake and fictitious. However, the ld. DR fairly admitted that Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of sister concern of assessee i.e. Nath Seeds Ltd. Vs. ACIT (supra), has deleted penalty on the additions made under similar circumstances. 4. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of transfer of both listed and unlisted shares and debentures among the group concerns; 2. Involving many layers among the group concerns; 3. involving both online and some off-market transactions partly; 4. along with diminishing rates per shares or debentures from the Assessee - the original to S1 and then to S2, AO is of the view that it is the case of 'furnishing of the inaccurate particulars' in the return of income. 43. Further, AO ignored the undisputed fact that the Assessee made claim of loss in the return vide the contents in the computation of income. Assessee furnished details of the sale and purchases of the securities. Dates of purchase, purchase cost per shares, sale price per shares, date of sales, names of the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty proceedings, book entries are genuine, share transfers are recorded, the payments of the consideration are squired-up or the liabilities do exists in the books of accounts etc. We cannot understand what is fake about them. Therefore, in our view, it is the case of mere suspicion. Considering the penalty proceedings, such suspicion is not adequate enough to penalise the Assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is rightly so, as the penalty has the other implications of prosecution under the law. As such, the AO has no incriminating information against the Assessee to prove that the impugned share transactions constitutes fake or fictitious etc., and they are entered into by the assessee for malafide intentions. 46. Regarding the argu....