ACIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Anant Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4354/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 435420114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: SURESH ANANTHARAMAN
• Keywords: Business income; Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; International transaction; Bonafide belief; Speculation loss; Difference of opinion

Judgement Text

ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-18, NEW DELHI. VS. ANANT OVERSEAS PVT. LTD., 305, 3 RD FLOOR, BHANOT CORNER, PAMPOSH ENCLAVE, GREATER KAILASH-I, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAACA0234B ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S URESH ANANTHARAMAN, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. ANURADHA MISRA, CIT, DR ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS DEPARTMENTS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.07.2011, PASSED BY THE CIT (A)-III, DE LHI, TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CANCELLING THE PENAL TY OF RS.15,00,000/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT MAKING C LAIM WHICH IS NOT ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 2 SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHI NG OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2. THE FACTS AS PER THE DOCUMENTS ON RECORD ARE THAT IN THIS CASE, ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 25.9.2001 DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF ` 10,65,750/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN M/S FLE X GROUP OF CASES WAS CONDUCTED ON 23.02.2006. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI MANVINDER SINGH AND M /S FLEX INDUSTRIES LTD. (NOW M/S UFLEX LTD.) IN WHOSE NAMES/CASES WARRANTS OF AUTHORIZATION HAD BEEN ISSUED. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE ON 04.04.2007. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 08.05.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 10,65,750/-. ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 WAS PASSED ON 20.12.2007 VIDE WHICH TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A SSESSED AT ` 41,70,143/-. VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 20.12.2007, PA SSED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 31,04,398/-. THE CIT (A), VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.20 08, UPHELD THE SAID ADDITION, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- .. ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THESE SHARES WERE NOT ACQUIRED WITH THE INTENTION OF INVESTMENT AND EARNING OF DIVIDE ND. THESE WERE SIMPLY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT I TSELF HAS SHOWN BUSINESS INCOME FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SOME OF TH E SHARES OF THESE COMPANIES DURING THE YEAR ITSELF. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS COLOURED BY THE FACT THAT HE IS A TRADER IN THE SIMILAR COMMODITY. AS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O., THE A PPELLANT COMPANY HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF ASSOCIATE CON CERNS ONLY OF THE FLEX GROUP OF COMPANIES UNDER INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PURCHAS E AND SALE OF THESE SHARES AS A TRADER AND ITS BUSINESS WAS TO BUY THE SE SHARES WITH A VIEW TO SELL AT A PROFIT AND THE SHARES WERE NOT ACQUI RED TO HOLD AS AN INVESTMENT AND TO ENJOY THEIR DIVIDENDS. THE A.O. HAS ALSO RECORDED THE COGENT REASONS FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PROF IT EARNED ON SALE OF THESE SHARES WAS BUSINESS INCOME. HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. TREATING THE INCOME FR OM SALE OF SHARES AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 3 3. ON QUERY, IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE MA DE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- (I) THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR I NVESTMENT & STOCK-IN-TRADE, AND WHATEVER PROFIT/LOSS RESULTED ON I NVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE TREATED IT AS CAPITAL GAIN & IN THE CASE OF STOC K-IN-HAND TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. (II) THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED FULL PARTICULARS & SU BMITTED ALL THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS IN SUPPORT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 31.10 .2007. (III) THAT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), THE PRE- REQUISITE IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IN THE INSTANT CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT NONE OF THE PARTICUL ARS OF THE INCOME HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATELY FURNISHE D. (IV) RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. VS. ASSTT. C OMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, INDORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT A RETURN CANNO T BE FALSE UNLESS THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF DELIBERATENESS IN ITWHE RE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT INCLUDE A PARTICULAR ITEM IN THE TAXABLE TURNOVE R UNDER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE SO TO INCLUDE IT, IT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT TO CONDEMN THE RETURN AS A FALSE RETURN INVITING IMPOSIT ION OF PENALTY. (V) RELYING UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD. [2007] 158 TAXMAN 348 (DELHI), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE MATERIAL FACTS FOR COM PUTATION OF INCOME WAS BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD AND NON E OF THE PARTICULARS HAD BEEN CONCEALED AND SUBMITTED INACCURA TELY. (VI) THE ASSESSEE INVITED THE ATTENTION TOWARDS THE JUDGE MENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF CHANDER PAL BAGGA VS. THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER (2003) 26 1 ITR 67 (RAJ.). RELYING UPON THIS JUDGEMENT, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED ANY EXEMPTION AFTER DISCLOSING THE RELEVANT BAS IC FACTS AND UNDER IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OF 1961 H AS NOT OFFERED THAT AMOUNT FOR TAX, IN SUCH CASES, PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED. (VII) THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUD GEMENT OF HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH F IN THE CASE OF DCIT, C IRCLE-14 (1), NEW DELHI VS. M/S PEC LTD. REPORTED AS 2010-TIOL-50-ITAT- DEL AND CONTENDED THAT ONLY BECAUSE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED, THE PE NALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC. (VIII) THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JU DGEMENT OF HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH B IN THE CASE OF ADI T (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION) VS. PRECISION DRILLING (CYPRUS) LTD. REP ORTED AS 2010-TIOL- 07-ITAT-AHM. AND CONTENDED THAT MERELY BECAUSE SOME DI SALLOWANCES ARE MADE, PENALTY CANNOT BE MADE. ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 4 (IX) IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE MATERIAL FACTS FOR CO MPUTATION OF INCOME HAD BEEN BROUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECORD AND NONE OF THE PARTICULARS HAD BEEN CONCEALED NOR ANY INACCURATE PAR TICULARS WERE SUBMITTED. 4. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS, HOWEVER, WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE IMPOSING PENALTY OF ` 15 LACS ON THE ASSE SSEE, OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- A. THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE O F SHARES OF THE SAME COMPANIES WERE PARTLY TREATED AS BUSINESS IN COME AND PARTLY AS CAPITAL GAINS, WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME OR ANY OF THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS. B. THE FULL MATERIAL PARTICULARS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HAD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED, THE I NCOME WOULD HAVE GOT ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT IN THE CORRECT M ANNER. C. THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, FULL FACTS RELATING AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE CONCEALED/INACCURATELY FURNISHED. D. THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLEARLY BROUGHT ON RECO RD THE ISSUE INVOLVED AND ITS VIEW AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, I T CANNOT TAKE THE BENEFIT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT I N THE CASE OF CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD. V S. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX, INDORE. E. AS THE FULL MATERIAL FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT. VS. BACARDI MARTINI INDIA LTD . (SUPRA). F. THE FACTS OF THE CASE COVERED IN THE JUDGEMENT OF HO N 'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHANDER PAL BAGGA (SUPRA) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEC LARED MATERIAL FACTS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BUT THIS IS NOT SO IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY TH E ASSESSEE UPON THIS JUDGEMENT IS MISPLACED. G. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE ALSO DISTINGUI SHABLE FROM THE CASE COVERED IN JUDGEMENT OF HON 'BLE ITA T, DELH I BENCH 'F' IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CIRCLE - 14(1), NEW DELHI VS. M /S PEC LTD. ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 5 (SUPRA) BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED FULL MATERIAL FACTS WHILE FILING RETURN OF I NCOME. H. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE ARE ALSO DISTINGUI SHABLE FROM THE CASE COVERED IN JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT, AHMED ABAD BENCH 'B' IN THE CASE OF ADIT (INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTI ONS) VS PRECISION DRILLING (CYPRUS) LTD. (SUPRA) BECAUSE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED FULL MATERIAL FACTS WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. I. AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, IT IS AGAIN POINTED OUT THAT FUL L MATERIAL FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN. HAD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SCRUTI NIZED, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER. 5. BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED. AGGRIEVED, THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 6. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY RIGHTLY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE, HOLDING THA T MAKING A CLAIM NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BY ITSELF WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNIS HING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE OBSERVATIONS MAD E IN THE PENALTY ORDER, TO THE EFFECT THAT THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF THE SAME COMPANIES WERE PARTLY TREATED AS BUSI NESS INCOME AND PARTLY AS CAPITAL GAINS, WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME OR ANY OF THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS; THAT THE FULL MATERIAL P ARTICULARS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME; THAT HAD THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED, THE INCOME WOULD HAVE GOT ESCAPED FROM ASSESSMENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER; THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, FUL L FACTS RELATING AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, AS SUCH, THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE CONCEALED/INAC CURATELY FURNISHED; THAT FULL MATERIAL FACTS WERE NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 6 TIME OF FILING OF RETURN; AND THAT HAD THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE NOT BEEN SCRUTINIZED, THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT IN THE CORRECT MANNER. IT WAS THUS, CONTENDED THAT THER EFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), BEING UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BE ORDERED T O BE CANCELLED AND THE PENALTY ORDER BE REVIVED, ON ALLOWING THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDE D THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED SHORT-TERM CAP ITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DISALLOWED T HE ADJUSTMENT OF BROUGHT FORWARD CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE FULL DETAILS OF THE SHORT-TERM CAP ITAL GAIN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETUR N OF INCOME, AS WELL AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND THAT IT WAS ONLY A DIFFERENCE IN OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE AND THE LD. CIT (A) CORRECT LY DELETED THE PENALTY. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED 61280 EQUITY SHARES OF FOUR DIF FERENT COMPANIES FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE AND HAD DULY TAKEN DELIVERY TH EREOF, AS AVAILABLE FROM THE D-MAT ACCOUNT AND DETAIL OF DISTINCTIVE NUM BERS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ALL OTHER COMPLETE DET AILS OF THE SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD, AS SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COPIES OF THE BI LLS OF PURCHASE AND SALE, ON THE ASKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDISPUTEDLY , SINCE THE BEGINNING, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING SEPARATE AC COUNTS FOR INVESTMENT AND STOCK-IN-TRADE. THE PROFIT ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AS CAPITAL GAIN. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE PROFIT AND LOSS RESULTING FROM TRA NSACTIONS OF SHARES ACQUIRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE BROKERS NOTE IN THIS REGARD WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. PERTINENTLY, IN SCHEDULE-4 OF THE BALANCE SHEET, ALL SHARES HELD BY THE ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 7 ASSESSEE FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSE STOOD MENTIONED. LIKEWISE, IN NOTE NO.6 OF THE NOTES FORMING PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET, THE TRAN SACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE STOOD REFLECTED. APROPOS TH E SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAIN NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THESE SHARES DID NOT APPEAR IN THE B ALANCE SHEET SINCE NEITHER WAS THERE ANY OPENING BALANCE, NOR ANY CLOSING BALANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE SHARES. IT WAS THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THESE TRANSACTIONS THAT HAD BEEN SHOWN AS SUCH. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OF INVESTMENT. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, CAPITAL GAIN HAD BEEN CREDITED. THE LD. CI T (A) HAS DULY TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THESE FACTS WHILE RIGHTLY DELETING THE P ENALTY. THE ASSESSEE, ON SUCH BASIS, IT IS SEEN, HAS NEITHER CONCEALED ITS INCOME, NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF. IN FACT, THERE IS NO ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS JUST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ENTERT AINED AN OPINION DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TERMED IT AS BU SINESS INCOME. FOR THIS REASON ITSELF, THE MATTER, BEING DEBATABLE AT BEST , NO PENALTY WAS CALLED FOR AND THE SAME OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED. IN F ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COPY OF ACC OUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUN T, SCRIP-WISE INVESTMENT ACCOUNT, AND COPIES OF PURCHASE ACCOUNT, SALE/SECURITIE S ACCOUNT INTENDED FOR BUSINESS AND TRADE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY RELIED ON CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 230 CTR 320 (SC), AS PER WHICH, A MERE MAKING OF A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS REGARDING THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DECISION TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTI CE. SIMILARLY, CIT VS. AURIC INVESTMENT AND SECURITIES LTD., 310 ITR 121 (D EL) HAS ALSO BEEN RIGHTLY RELIED ON BY THE LD. CIT (A). THEREIN, BUSINESS LOSS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SPECULATIVE LOSS AND T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT DELETED THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.4354/DEL/2011 8 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, FINDING NO MERIT WHATSOEVER THEREIN, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE REJECTED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMEN T IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.11.20 13. SD/- SD/- [ G.D. AGRAWAL ] [A.D. JAIN] VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED,14 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.