Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Sucon India Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income and merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Held: AO in the instant case levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on account of addition being speculative loss on derivative transactions which according to him could not be set off against business income. While doing so, AO held that assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of business income. CIT(A) deleted the penalty so levied by AO. It was held that merely because AO had treated the business loss claimed by assessee as speculation loss, the same could not tantamount to concealment of income warranting levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c). Notice issued by AO was bad in law since it did not specify under which limb of section 271(1)(c), the penalty proceedings had been initiated i.e. whether for concealment of income or for furnishing of inaccurate particular of income. The order of CIT(A) cancelling the penalty levied by AO was upheld.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 09.06.2016 of the learned CIT(A), Faridabad, relating to Assessment Year 2009-10. The Revenue in its only effective ground of appeal has challenged the order of the learned CIT(A) in cancelling the penalty of Rs.9,39,26,270/-levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
