SKN 1/4 382.15 itxa IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 382 OF 2015 Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2. Appellant. V/s. M/s.Velvet Holdings Pvt.Ltd. Respondent. WITH INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 241 OF 2015 M/s.Velvet Holdings Pvt.Ltd. Appellant. V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax II and another. Respondent. Mr.A.R.Malhotra and Mr.N.A.Kazi for appellant in ITXA No.382/2015 and for respondents in ITXA No.241/2015. Mr.Pankaj R. Toprani for appellant in ITXA No.241/2015 and for respondent in ITXA No.382/2015. CORAM : A.S.OKA AND A.K.MENON, JJ. DATE : 29th November 2017. P.C.: As these two appeals arise out of same impugned judgment and order, we have taken up same together for admission. 2. In this case, we are concerned with return of income filed by appellant for assessment year 2004 05. For sake of convenience we are referring parties as assessee and revenue. ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 09:41:05 ::: SKN 2/4 382.15 itxa assessee is notified person under provisions of Special Court (Trial of Offences relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992 (for short said Act of 1992 ). All assets of assessee were vested in Custodian appointed under said Act of 1992. return for assessment year 2004 05 was belatedly filed in year 2007. total income declared by assessee was Rs.17,03,508/ which is computed in accordance with provisions of section 115JB of Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short said Act of 1961). notice under section 148 of said Act of 1961 was served to assessee. 3. order of assessment was made by Assessing Officer on 10th October 2007. assessee had claimed benefit under section 50 of said Act of 1961. In assessment order passed under sub section (3) of section 143, Assessing Officer held that assessee is liable to pay interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of said Act of 1961. demand notice was, accordingly, ordered to be issued. penalty proceedings were ordered to be initiated. 4. appeal was preferred by assessee being aggrieved by order of Assessing Officer. appeal came to be dismissed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Against said order, appeal was preferred by assessee before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short Appellate Tribunal ). appeal preferred by assessee was partly allowed. Appellate Tribunal upheld findings on issue of applicability of section 50 of said Act of 1961. Income Tax Appeal No.241/2014 is preferred by assessee against said ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 09:41:05 ::: SKN 3/4 382.15 itxa order. 5. As far as appeal preferred by revenue (Income Tax Appeal No.382/2015) is concerned, issue involved therein is confined to liability to pay penalty under clause (c) of section 271 of said Act of 1961. challenge is to order of Appellate Tribunal dated 27 th August 2014 by which appeal preferred by assessee was allowed and order of levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) was set aside. 6. As far as appeal preferred by assessee is concerned, learned counsel appearing for appellant fairly stated that he is not pressing first substantial question of law formulated therein. He also fairly invited our attention to judgment and order dated 29 th September 2017 in Income Tax Reference No.96/2000 (Smt.Meena V. Pamnani, Mumbai v. Commissioner of Income Tax) as well as Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II v. Cascade Holdings (P.) Ltd. 1. other substantial questions of law which are pressed into service by assessee would not arise in view of said decision of this Court. 7. As regards appeal preferred by revenue, submission of learned counsel appearing for revenue is that law was very clear and knowing fully well legal position, claim to Long Term Capital loss was made by assessee. submission of learned counsel appearing for revenue is that making such claim amounts to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 [2014] 45 taxmann.com 228 (Bombay) ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 09:41:05 ::: SKN 4/4 382.15 itxa 8. We have given careful consideration to submissions. As noted by Appellate Tribunal, undisputed position is that assessee has furnished all details of sale of property and also in relation to its purchase. only dispute is with regard to mode and manner of computation of income arising out same. assessee computed income by taking into account Long Term Capital Loss. He was relying upon certain decisions of Tribunal. view taken by Assessing Officer was to contrary. Looking to admitted position and findings of fact, it was certainly not case of concealment of particulars income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is not case of revenue that inaccurate details relating to sale of property including sale proceeds and relating to its purchase were furnished by assessee. 9. Therefore, there is no merit in appeal preferred by revenue. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, we pass following order: Both appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.K.MENON, J.) (A.S.OKA, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 28/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2017 09:41:05 ::: Pr. CommissionerofIncome-tax-Central-2 v. VelvetHoldingsPvt. Ltd