Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax 3, Mumbai v. M/S. Dome Bell Electronics (I) Pvt Ltd

R.M. AMBERKAR (Private Secretary) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYO.O.C.J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 317 OF 2017 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai Versus M/s. Dome Bell Electronics (I) Pvt Ltd ..Appellant ..Respondent ................... Mr. Sham Walve for the AppellantMr. Sham Walve for the Appellant ................... CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : APRIL 16, 2019. P.C.: 1.This appeal is filed by the Revenue to challenge thejudgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (“theTribunal" for short). 2.Following question is presented for our consideration:- " Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunalwas justified in deleting the penalty levied on the assessee u/S.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the claim of carry forward of thelong term capital loss of Rs. 4,73,11,879/- was not substantiated bythe assessee and, therefore, not allowable and such claim amountsto the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within themeaning of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act?"was justified in deleting the penalty levied on the assessee u/S.271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 when the claim of carry forward of thelong term capital loss of Rs. 4,73,11,879/- was not substantiated bythe assessee and, therefore, not allowable and such claim amountsto the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within themeaning of Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act?" 3.Issue relates to penalty imposed by the Assessing OfÏcer which was deleted by the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. Inthe return of income filed, the assessee had shown capitalloss arising out of sale of shares. The Assessing OfÏcerasked for the details of purchases. The assessee pointed outthat the shares were purchased more than a decade backand the details were not readily available. The assessee,however, pointed out that full details were reflected in thedocuments which are already produced on record. TheAssessing OfÏcer did not accept such stand and rejected theclaim of long term capital loss. He also instituted the penaltyproceedings. The CIT(A) and the Tribunal held that merelybecause a claim was not accepted, would not mean that thiswas a case of withholding the particulars of income. It is wellsettled through series of judgments, reference can be madeto the decision of the Supreme Court in case of CIT(Ahmedabad) Vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt Ltd.[1] thatmerely rejection of the claim which is otherwise bonafide,would not give rise to penalty proceedings. In the result, theIncome Tax Appeal is dismissed. [ SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. ] [ AKIL KURESHI, J ] 1[2010] 322 ITR 1548 (SC)