TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1214
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee are reproduced as under: 1 That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) confirming the penalty of Rs. 401,352/- imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax is perverse, bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 2 That on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (A) has failed to appreciate since the assessee had made full disclosure of the entire facts and also substantiated it by providing relevant material and the only dispute was the head of income under which such loss was to be assessed and as such the order imposing the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessing Officer also noted that this was a solitary transaction and there was no purchase/sale of shares of any other company in the year under consideration or in the earlier years. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that loss arising on sale of the shares was in the nature of long-term capital loss. On appeal filed by the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed Rs. 11,74,281/- on account of long-term capital loss. On further appeal filed by the Revenue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (in short the 'Tribunal'), the order of the authorities were set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding a fresh. The Tribunal directed the assessee to demonstrate the fact that shares were valued at market price or cost price which wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the Ld. CIT(A), who upheld the penalty holding that the claim of business loss was a bogus and false claim. Aggrieved with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that fact of the sale of 8500 shares of HFCL was duly disclosed by the assessee in the return of income and only difference was in respect of whether the loss on account of the sale of those shares should be treated as business loss or long-term capital loss. He submitted that the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Praveen B Gada (HUF) (2011) 244 CTR 463 held that merely because the assessee treated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reated the shares as stockin-trade. In view of these facts, the Assessing Officer levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and same has been sustained by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We find that in identical issue in the case of CIT Vs. Praveen Gada (HUF) (supra) , the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has observed as under: "6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find that in the absence of any independent finding by the AO that the assessee either concealed his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, merely because the assessee treated it as a business loss, whereas the Revenue treated it as a capital loss, the provisions contained under s. 271(1)(c) of the A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble High Court is reproduced as under: "3. This Court notices that the Tribunal while upholding the order of the appellate commissioner relied upon the decision in CIT Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC). Furthermore, the record reveals that the amount in question, which formed the basis for the assessing officer to levy penalty was in fact truthfully reported in the returns. In view of this circumstance, that the assessing officer chose to treat the income under some other head cannot characterize the particulars or reported in the return as an inaccurate particulars or as suppression of facts. The Court is also conscious of the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. vs. Income Tax Office....