TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (6) TMI 950
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of penalty under section 271(1) (c) and the act done by the officer stands bad in law. 2. The AO & CIT(A) must look at the facts that the additions in returned income were made, In the present case, admittedly, appellant made a claim on bonafide belief but the same was rejected and disallowed not for the reason that the claim was not genuine or was fabricated but in view of provisions of law that assessee has taken bogus STCG. At the stated facts alone it does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant either concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. There has to be a positive act of concealment on his part and the onus to prove is on the Department. 3. The leaned CIT(A) grossly erred in law in relying on explanation to section 271(1) (c) to raise a prejudice presumption against the appellant. The appellant has justified his estimate of income on the basis of all the business expenditures carried out during the year. The appellant has disclosed his income as per the law and to the best of his knowledge and the addition made on does not stand any ground for levy of penalty u/s 271 (1 )(C). 4. It is also further contended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot bar or prohibit an assessee for making a claim, which he believes may be accepted or is plausible. When such a claim is made during the course of regular or scrutiny assessment, liberal view is required to be taken as necessarily the claim is bound to be carefully scrutinized both on facts and in law. Full probe and appraisal is natural and normal. Penalty cannot become a gag and/or haunt an assessee for making a claim which may be erroneous or wrong, when it is made during the course of the assessment proceedings. Normally, penalty proceedings in such cases should not be initiated unless there are valid or good grounds to show that factual concealment has been made or inaccurate particulars on facts were provided in the computation. Law does not bar or prohibit a person from making a claim, when he knows the matter is going to be examined by the Assessing Officer. 8. Consequently, the imposition of penalty on the appellant was not justified at all in the order passed. Therefore, we request your honour for non-imposition of penalty under section 271 (1) (c) considering the above mentioned facts. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend all the above grounds of ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he assessee with the following remarks: "8. I have carefully considered the penalty order, assessment order and the submission of the appellant. The brief facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income on 20-9-2011 declaring total income of Rs. 26,31,790/- and claimed Short Term Capital Loss of Rs, 35,33,650/-. The AO examined the issue in the assessment proceedings and called for details of Short Term Capital Loss and found certain discrepancies in the claim made by the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed a letter before the AO and submitted that due to mistake the Short Term Capital Loss was claimed. However, the same has been revised and tax of Rs, 10,55,000/- has been paid on 28-12-2013. The appellant did not file any reason/ explanation for filing the revised computation, The appellant In computation merely submitted that instead of speculation loss, the same was claimed as Short Term Capital Loss. The AO did not accept the claim of the appellant and 8.1 It is fact that the appellant filed revised calculation after the wrong claim of Short Term Capital Loss was detected by the AO. Therefore the same cannot be treated as voluntary disclosure of income.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me was found while sorting out unwanted papers, steps were taken for preparation of appeal, the delay in filing of appeal before Tribunal could not be condoned as same was due to negligence and inaction on part of assessee and assessee could have very well avoided delay by exercise of due care and attention. While rejecting the assessee's application for condonation of delay, the Tribunal made the following observations: The delay cannot be condoned simply because the appellant's case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty of negligence, whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, or inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant, a liber....