TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 658
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of Rs. 5,51,29,555/- and paid advance tax during the year on the capital gains of Rs. 5,51,29,555/-. However, while filing her return of income for the assessment year 2006-2007, she claimed exemption under Section 10(34) of the Act for this gain, along with income under the heads dividend, interest and share of profit and sought for refund of Rs. 1,22,48,928/-. 2. The case was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer denied exemption under Section 10 on the ground that M/s.Vision Health Services (P) Ltd., is not a listed company and no Security Transaction Tax (STT) suffered by the assessee on the sale of those shares, hence it has to be brought under the head capital gains and to be taxed accordingly, without exemption. As....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation offered by the assessee? 2 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in reversing the order of CIT (Appeals) and restoring the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) where the assessee had made a claim under a bonafide belief and had not intended to or attempted to either conceal its income or furnished inaccurate particulars? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the typographical error in disclosing the capital gains as exempt u/s 10 in the computation of income by the Chartered Accountant would attract penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act? 6. The contention of the appellant, through her Counsel is that, the income from the sale of shares was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tal gains, but would be taxable in the case of Anurag Jain under the head 'salaries' under Section 17(3)(ii) of the Act. 8. Relying heavily upon the above ruling of the Authority for Advance Rulings, the Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that, the exemption claimed might not be accurate or sustainable in law, but it cannot be termed as concealment of particulars. Following the dictum laid down by Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Reliance Petroproducts reported in (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC) and the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Saradha Textiles reported in (2006) 286 ITR 499 (Mad), the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had rightly held that the levy of penalty under Section 271(1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from the fact that the assessee has willfully made a false claim. Hence, it attracts penalty. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Department further submitted that the authority of Advance Ruling given in case of Anurag Jain, in re is factually not applicable to this assessee, though both are shareholders in the same Company and sold to the same buyer in case of Anurag Jain, there is a relationship of employer and employee between the buyer Company and seller Company which is absent in the case of the assessee herein. Therefore, advance ruling of the Authority in respect of Anurag Jain, is to be confined to the facts of Anurag Jain case alone and cannot be extended to the other assessees. 12. The sum and substance of the defence taken by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iling the returns. Only on scrutiny, the escaped assessment had come to light and tax has been collected. Being an intentional omission to declare the capital gains same is to be construed as concealment of income. Furnishing inaccurate particulars of income attracts penalty. It is true that not in every case of non-payment or short payment of duty, the penalty clause would automatically get attracted. If in case of inadvertent omission or unintentional omission, penalty need not be imposed. However, in this case, it is not an inadvertent omission. A conscious claim of exemption was made after paying the advance tax, later, refund claimed. Only when the escaped income was found in scrutiny, the assessee wants to rely upon the authority of A....