TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....owing grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in sustaining the penalty of Rs. 6,39,324/-. 2. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and on the facts of the case. 3. That we would be allowed to alter, amend or add fresh grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 4. Appellant prays that the penalty be deleted. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of shares and has income from sale of shares, dividend income and interest on fixed deposits. The assessee company has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2005-06 on 25.10.2005 with total loss of Rs. 9, 10,224/-. But, the A.O considering the submissions and information on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ixed deposits and passed the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. We find that, the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in shares and derive income from sale of shares, dividend income and Interest on fixed deposits. The A.O in the assessment proceedings invoked the explanations to Sec. 73 of the Income Tax Act and is of the opinion that the assessee s income is in the nature of speculation income, therefore sale and purchase of shares are speculation activities. Hence the set off of speculation loss with other income is not permitted. The assessee has disclosed the dividend income, interest on fixed deposits under income from other sources, though the dividend income is exempted. The assessee has claimed the set off of business loss ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roceedings under Section 271. (e) The existence of such conditions should be discernible from the Assessment Order or order of the Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority. (f) Even if there is no specific finding regarding the existence of the conditions mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), at least the facts set out in Explanation 1(A) & (B) it should be discernible from the said order which would by a legal fiction constitute concealment because of deeming provision. (g) Even if these conditions do not exist in the assessment order passed, at least, a direction to initiate proceedings under Section 271(l)(c) is a sine qua non for the Assessment Officer to initiate the proceedings because of the deeming provision ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Assessing Officer has not recorded any satisfaction or has not issued any direction to initiate penalty proceedings, in appeal, if the appellate authority records satisfaction, then the penalty proceedings have to be initiated by the appellate authority and not the Assessing Authority. (p) Notice under Section 274 of the Act should specifically state the grounds mentioned in Section 271(l)(c), i.e., whether it is for concealment of income or for furnishing of incorrect particulars of income (q) Sending printed form where all the ground mentioned in Section 271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. (r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w. We also rely on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Reliance Petroleum Products Ltd., 322 ITR and the observations are read as under: "271(1) If the A.O or the commissioner (Appeals) or the commissioner in the course of any proceedings under the Act, is satisf ied that any person (c) has concealed the particular of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. A glance at his provision would suggest that in order to be covered there has to be concealment of the particular of the income of the assessee. Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particular of his income. The present is not a case of concealment of the income. That is not the case of the revenue ....