AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 675
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the A.Y. 2012-13 vide order dated 13.02.2015 under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter 'the Act'). The penalty was levied by Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 12(1)(1) under section 271(1)(c) vide order dated 28.08.2015. 2. The only issue in this appeal of Revenue is against the order of CIT(A) deleting the penalty levied by AO under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of non-disclosure of working of capital gains that the assessee rectified during the course of assessment proceedings. For this, Revenue is raised following two effective grounds: - "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax act, 1961 wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at Rs.3,96,35,741/- stating that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income of this loss. The AO levied the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by stating in Para 5 as under: - "5. Considering the overall legislative and judicial intent in this regard it is held that the assessee has purposefully not offered clear picture arising on conversion of capital asset to stock-in-trade, and has claimed excessive business loss in the Return of income submitted while the same was specifically mentioned in the Tax Audit Report to by pass its tax liability and to wrongly carry forward the same as business loss to subsequent years and to set off with the business income of those years. Therefore, the assessee is held to be liab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the return of Income nor is it reflected in the final accounts of the Appellant. A perusal of the Final Accounts dearly show that there is no revenue from operations during the financial year under consideration. There was merely a business loss on basis of sale of shares. All the said entries were properly recorded in the books of account and a return claiming loss u/s 143(1) was filed within the prescribed time. Hence, there was no furnishing of inaccurate particulars of Income and the penalty levied by AO may be deleted. It is noted that it is also not in dispute that the assessee has shown all the particulars of fixed asset converted into stock-in-trade in its financial statements, tax audit report and audit report of the company. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are found to be inaccurate, the liability could arise. To attract penalty, the details supplied in the return must not be accurate, not exact or correct, not according to the truth or erroneous. Where there is no finding that any details supported by the assessee in its return are found to be incorrect or erroneous or false there is no question of inviting the penalty under section 271(1)(c). A mere making of a claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such a claim made in the return cannot amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars." Respectfully following the ratio of the above decision I am of the view that there is no concealment o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,22,24,770/- and loss on conversion of investment into stock-in-trade was determined at Rs.2,74,03,924/- thereby, the assessee declared an amount of Rs.30,16,391/- under the head income from business. We noted that the complete details/ particulars were available before the AO in regard to this transaction of sale of sales and conversion of its investment into stock-in-trade. In view of the explanation of the assessee that there has been an inadvertent mistake/ error in filing the return of income and that also occurred entirely on accountant oversite of the chartered accountant while computing income which was required to be computed after considering the provisions of section 45A(2) of the Act. Having regard to the fact that investments ....