2011 (4) TMI 1497

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f car - Rs. 1,80,490/- b) Loss on sale of shares- Rs. 99,370/- 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, when the matter was brought to the notice of the assessee, the assessee accepted the addition regarding loss on sale of car stating that there is an inadvertent error. On the second addition also the assessee claimed that such loss was inadvertent and requested to consider the loss as a speculation loss by applying explanation to Sec. 73. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and levied a penalty of Rs. 1,01,101/- being 100% of the tax sought to be evaded. 4. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The AR of the assessee repeated the submissions made before the AO that the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....238 ITR 905 (Ker) i) Cement Marketing Co. of India Ltd. 124 ITR 15 (SC) j) CIT Vs Smt. Padma Devi Jain 245 ITR 818 (M.P) k) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (157 ITR 822)(del) l) Impulse India (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 40 ITD 36 (Del) m) Associated Cement Companies Ltd. Vs Dy. CIT 40 itd 70 (Bom) n) CIT Vs Smt. Bimla Devi Sharma 192 ITR 482 (Pat) o) Shri Ishar Alloy & Steel Ltd. Vs ACIT 68 ITD 117 (Mum) p) CIT Vs STI Biplus Tubing (India) Ltd. 247 ITR 426)(MP) q) Harshvardhan Chemicals & Minerals Ltd. Vs DCIT 101 Taxation 31(JP) r) CTO Vs Sojat Tyre Co. 74 STC 288 (Raj) s) Panchratna Hotels Pvt. Ltd. 44 TTJ Ahd 282 t) CIT Vs Devi Day....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....viable in the case of the appellant for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 977 (SC) that penalty is a civil matter and mensrea is not required to be proved for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). In this case, the assessee has claimed losses which are clearly not allowable. Hence, penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is attracted. The case law relied by the AR are distinguishable on facts and all these case laws are prior to the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Dharmendra Textile Processors (2008) 306 ITR 977 (SC). The claim of the appellant that there was inadvertent mistake cannot be accepted when wit is a fact that the case of the appellant is audited ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee himself has accepted that the loss on the sale of car is a capital loss and cannot be allowed as revenue expenditure. Likewise on sale of shares, the assessee can claim it only as a capital loss as the assessee is not in the business of sale of shares and securities and loss on sale of shares being a capital loss the same cannot be treated as a speculation loss. Hence the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income as the assessee has claimed loss which are clearly not allowable. 11. We heard both the parties. We find that in the quantum appeal, the assessee has agreed to the addition. Although an attempt has been made on behalf of the assessee to submit before the authorities below as well as before us the said mista....