In The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 25, Mumbai v. Sunil S. Rathi, the High Court (2011) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Issue: P.C. : DATE : 8th September 2011 1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INCOME TAX APPEAL (L) NO.883 OF 2011
The Commissioner of Income Tax – 25, Mumbai..Appellant.
Versus
Sunil S. Rathi..Respondent.
Ms.Suchitra Kamble for the appellant.Mr.Vipul Joshi for the respondent.
CORAM : J.P. Devadhar &K.K. Tated, JJ.
P.C. :
DATE : 8th September 2011
1.Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in deleting the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is the question raised in this appeal.
2.In the present case, the dispute is whether the assessee was
justified in claiming the loss arising from the sale of shares as business loss instead of claiming it as capital loss. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee was under a bona fide belief that the loss arising on sale of shares were liable to be allowed as business loss and such a claim made by the assessee would not amount to concealing the
particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Whether the loss is allowable as a business loss or as a capital loss is a matter of inference to be drawn and if a bona fide inference drawn by the assessee is
found to be wrong, it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed particulars of income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income as contemplated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3.In the result, we see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K.K. Tated, J.)
(J.P. Devadhar, J.)
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.