Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
ORDER These two appeals – one against the quantum order and the other against the penalty order – relate to assessment year 2001-02. Tribunal was subsequently recalled vide its later order dated 8.6.2016. Since both the appeals are based on similar facts, I am proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.
Facts leading to the quantum appeal are that the assessee purchased 1,80,000 unquoted shares of M/s Shiv Shakti Extrusions Ltd. with face value of Rs.10 each at par aggregating to Rs.18 lac. At the end of the year, these shares were valued at Rs.16,20,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was claimed as deduction towards depreciation in the value of shares. In the original round of proceedings, the matter came up before the Tribunal which restored the matter to the file of AO for granting full opportunity to the assessee to file details in respect of the claim. In the fresh proceedings, the assessee was again required to file necessary details. The assessee submitted before the AO that the company had surplus funds which were used for purchasing 1,80,000 shares at par. It was explained that the said company was about to come out with public issue, but, eventually, did not due to market conditions.
The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention of having held the shares as stock-in-trade because the assessee company had never dealt with the shares since its incorporation. Since the assessee invested all surplus funds as per the assessee’s own version, the AO treated the purchase of shares as `Investment’ and, resultantly, disallowed the amount of loss on their valuation to the tune of Rs.1,80,000/-. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the assessment order on this issue.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It is evident from the assessee’s reply tendered before the AO that the company invested its surplus funds in purchase of unquoted shares. It can be seen that the assessee had never dealt with or traded in shares either in the past or in the future. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the assessee’s contention of having held these shares as `stock-in-trade’. Once it is held that the shares were purchased as investment, there cannot be any deduction on account of decline in the value of `investment’ as at the year end. I, therefore, approve the view taken by the authorities below.
In the result, the quantum appeal is dismissed.
As regards the penalty appeal, it is found that the AO imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance of Rs.1,80,000/-. The facts narrated above evidently prove that the assessee claimed deduction for decline in the value of shares which it perceived to be stock-in-trade rather than investment. But, for that, all the necessary details were duly filed. Simply because the assessee’s contention of the shares having been purchased and held as stock-in-trade has not been accepted, it cannot be equated with concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income so as to attract the penalty. It is a case in which the assessee’s bona fide belief of these shares having been held as investment has not been accepted, which can be a good ground for making of disallowance, but, cannot lead to imposition of penalty. I, therefore, order for the deletion of the penalty.
In the result, the penalty appeal is allowed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 21.06.2016.