FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS P. LTD, MUMBAI V. DCIT 4(1), MUMBAI

ITA 848/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8320 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2010
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH F, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 848/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 M/S. FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD., 209-210, ARCADIA BUILDING, 2 ND FLOOR, 195,NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021. PAN: AAACF 0659 D VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX-4(1), 6 TH FLOOR, ROOM NO. 640, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI 400 020. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAY MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-8, MUMBAI, DAT ED 19.11.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, WHEREBY HE CONFIRMED THE P ENALTY OF RS. 16,74,380/- IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A COMPANY, W HICH IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING AND SHARE BROKING. THE R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY IT ON 28.11.2003 D ECLARING A LOSS OF RS.76,28,820/-. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SAID RETURN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SHARE TRADING LOSS OF RS. 45,5 6,135/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE SAID LOSS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS LOSS AS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME WAS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS I N TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. HE, THEREFORE, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N WHY ITS CLAIM FOR THE SAID LOSS BEING BUSINESS LOSS SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RE PLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ITS MAJOR INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE SAME BEING MORE THAN THE NEGA TIVE INCOME EARNED FROM TRADING IN SHARES, EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 IS NO T APPLICABLE. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE MAIN ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TRADI NG IN SHARES AND, THEREFORE, DIVIDEND EARNED BY IT ON THE SHARES HELD AS STOCK-I N-TRADE WAS ALSO ITS INCOME FROM TRADING OF SHARES AND NOT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES. HE, THEREFORE, HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELYING ON THE SAID EXPLANATION AS WELL AS THE DECI SIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ROHINI CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (92 ITD 317) AND I N THE CASE OF FRONTLINE CAPITAL SERVICES LTD. (96 TTJ 201), HE HELD THAT THE LOSS C LAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TRADING OF SHARES WAS A SPECULATION LOSS. HE ALSO WORKED O UT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY ON PRO-RATA BASIS AT RS. 81,055,487/- AND ACCORDINGLY CALCULATED THE TOTAL SHARE TRADING LOSS AT RS.1,26, 61,622/-. THE SAID LOSS WAS TREATED BY HIM AS SPECULATION LOSS AND DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SET OFF OF THE SAID LOSS AGAINST OTHER INCOME, HE CARRI ED FORWARD THE SAME TO THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR FOR SET OFF AGAINST SPECULATION INC OME. THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 50,32,810/- IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) VIDE ORDE R DATED 20.12.2005 AS AGAINST THE LOSS OF RS. 76,28,820/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TR ADING OF SHARES AS SPECULATION LOSS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. HE, HO WEVER, HELD THAT THE EXPENSES ATTRIBUTABLE TO TRADING IN SHARES WHERE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,24,988/- AS AGAINST RS. 81,05,487/- WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL SPECULATION LOSS WAS DETERMINED BY THE LEARNED CIT( A) AT RS. 49,81,123/- AS AGAINST RS.1,26,61,622/- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 3 4. AS A RESULT OF SUSTENANCE OF THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SHARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 49,81,123/-, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSE E. IN REPLY TO THE SAID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT MERE DISALLOWANCE OF ITS CLAIM COULD NOT IPSO FACTO BE CONSIDERED TO BE GIVING RIS E TO PENALTY ACTION U/S. 271(1)(C). THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO HIM, THERE WAS NO DI FFERENCE OF OPINION ON THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SH ARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS AS THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. HE, THEREFORE, P ROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY OF RS. 16,74,380/- U/S.271(1)(C) BEING 100% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CLAIMING THE SHARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSI NESS LOSS. 5. THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S .271(1)(C) WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE: (A) THE LOSS OF RS. 45,556,135/- WHICH WAS TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIMINUTION OF VALUE OF SHARES A ND THE MOOT QUESTION WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER A BONAFIDE CLAIM OF BUSINESS LOSS WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS COULD BE HELD AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. (B) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, CONTROVERSIES WERE GOING ON REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF DIMINUTION LOSS AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DECISION IN FAVOUR OF APPELLANT WHICH HEL D THAT LOSS ON DIMINUTION OF VALUE OF SHARES WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 73. (C) THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T IN CASE OF M/S. WEIZMANN FINCORP LTD. WHEREIN FOR A.Y.2002-03 AD 20 03-04 OF ORDER DATED 16 TH JULY, 2008 AS PER PAGE 11, PARA 16 THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF TREATMENT OF LOSS ARISING ON ACCOUNT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARE TRADING AS SPECULATION LOSS WAS HELD TO BE NOT LEVI ABLE REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NIRMAN HOLDING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.529/M/02 AND IT WAS HELD THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED WHERE ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT T HE LEGAL CLAIM WAS HELD TO BE DISALLOWABLE, NO NOTICE CAN BE ATTRIBUTED IN SUCH CASES REGARDING CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND THE BONAFIDE ASSESSEES C LAIM CANNOT BE DOUBTED IN VIEW OF CONFLICTING OPINIONS EXPRESSED B Y THE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 4 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ABO VE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. ACCORDING TO HI M, THERE WAS NOTHING BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE SHARE TR ADING LOSS TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS WAS DUE TO DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES. HE HELD THAT THERE WAS THUS AN ATTEMPT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO MIS-REP RESENT THE FACTS BY STATING THAT THE SAID LOSS WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF SHARES. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS WELL AWARE THAT THE S HARE TRADING LOSS WAS A SPECULATIVE LOSS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND STILL THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS BUSINESS LOSS BY CONCEALING THE MATERIAL FACTS. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONFIRMED THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUT SET, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION PLACED AT PAGE NO.1 OF HIS PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS MORE THAN RS.26 LAKHS WHEREA S THE SHARE TRADING LOSS WAS NEGATIVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THUS WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS MORE THAN THE INC OME FROM BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES WHICH WAS NEGATIVE AND THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE. HE CONTENDED THAT ALTHOUGH THIS VIEW A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED IN VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE SAID VIEW WAS A POSSIBLE VIEW BASED ON INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEVANT PROVIS ION OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73. HE THEN TOOK US THROUGH THE AUDIT REPORT AND FINANC IAL STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME (COPIES PL ACED AT PAGE NOS. 2 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK) TO SHOW THAT ALL THE MATERIAL PARTI CULARS RELATING TO THIS CLAIM FOR SHARE TRADING LOSS WERE TRULY AND FULLY FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 5 P.LTD. (322 ITR 158)(SC), HE CONTENDED THAT THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SHARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS WAS MADE BONAFIDE AND ALL THE PARTICULARS RELEVANT THERETO HAVING BEEN FURNISHED FULLY AND TRULY, IT W AS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C). HE ALSO INVITED OUT ATTENTI ON TO THE RELEVANT DETAILS OF TRANSACTION RESULTING INTO SHARE TRADING LOSS TO TH E ASSESSEE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 30 AND 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE S AID LOSS WAS A RESULT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES HELD BY THE ASSES SEE. HE SUBMITTED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE SAID LOSS WAS NOT THE RESULT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES, THUS IS FACTU ALLY INCORRECT AND THIS INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY HIM WITHOUT CALLING FOR THE RELEVANT D ETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. GURU HOLDINGS PVT. LTD.,(ITA NO. 5248/MUM/2 000 DATED 02.05.2008), HE CONTENDED THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 IS NOT APP LICABLE TO THE LOSS CAUSED DUE TO VALUATION OF SHARES AS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE SAID CASE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISIO N OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T IN THE CASE OF AMAN PORTFOLIO (P) LTD. V. D CIT (92 ITD 324) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T IN THE CASE OF ITO V. CACL FINANCE LTD. (30 SOT 360). 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 WE RE CLEARLY ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DESPITE THESE SPECIFIC PROVISIO NS, THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY CLAIMED THE LOSS IN TRADING OF SHARES AS BUSINESS L OSS INSTEAD OF SPECULATION LOSS. HE CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS A RESULT OF DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES IS COVERED BY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE TRADING LOSS BEING BUSINESS LOSS WAS BONAFIDE. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 6 SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCT S P.LTD.(SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, HE CONTENDED THAT THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE CLA IM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE BONAFIDE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ZOOM COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. (191 TAXMAN 179)(DEL). HE CONTENDED THAT IF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS PATENTLY WRONG AND TOTALLY UNTENABLE AS IS THE POSITION IN THE PRESENT CASE, PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS CLEARLY ATTRACTED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE COMPUTA TION OF TOTAL INCOME GIVEN AT PAGE NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK THAT THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS POSITIVE, WHEREAS THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES WAS NEGAT IVE. ON THE BASIS OF THESE FIGURES, ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SHARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS AND NOT SPECULATION LOSS IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73, WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS MORE TH AN THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES. ALTHOUGH THIS CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TURNED OUT TO BE WRONG AS A RESULT OF CONTRARY VIEW TAKEN IN T HE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BONAFIDE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF ITS CASE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVE D THAT THE SHARE TRADING LOSS WAS ACTUALLY SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A RESULT OF DI MINUTION IN THE VALUE OF SHARES HELD BY IT AND ON THIS BASIS ALSO, THE CLAIM MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE TREATING THE SAID LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS WAS BONAFIDE AS THE SAME WAS BASED ON THE POSSIBLE VIEW OF THE MATTER AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DECISION OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GURU HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA). MOREOVER, ALL THE PARTI CULARS IN RELATION TO ITS CLAIM FOR SHARE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS WERE FULLY AND TRULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ALONG WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND THE AVE RMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 7 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EFFECT HAS NOT BE EN REBUTTED/CONTROVERTED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 10. IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTRS PVT. LT D.(SUPRA) CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE INFORMATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WHILE MAKING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTI ON WAS NOT FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INACCURATE AND IT WAS HELD BY HE HONB LE SUPREME COURT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT THAT MAKING AN INCOR RECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) IS NOT ATTRACTED. IT IS ALSO PERTINE NT TO NOTE HERE THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TRADING OF SHARES HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AT ANY STAGE AN D IT IS ONLY THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS H AS BEEN CHANGED BY THEM TO SPECULATION LOSS. IN THE CASE OF GACL FINANCE LTD. , (SUPRA), CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM TRADING OF SHARES AS BUSINESS LOSS WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SPECULATION LOSS BY INVOKING THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 AND PENALTY WAS ALSO IMPOSED BY HIM UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED, HOWEVER, WAS FOU ND TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT A FIT CA SE TO IMPOSE SUCH PENALTY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SHA RE TRADING LOSS AS BUSINESS LOSS WAS MADE BONAFIDE HAVING REGARD TO THE RELEVANT FAC TS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND ALL THE PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE SAID CLAIM HAVING BEEN FULLY AND TRULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO IMPOSE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AS HELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA). IN TH AT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE CANCEL ITA NO. 848/M/2010 M/S.FOUR DIMENSIONS CAPITAL MARKETS PVT. LTD. 8 THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CO NFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2011. SD. SD. (R.V. EASWAR) (P.M. JAGTAP) PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED THE 9 TH MARCH, 2011. KN COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT-4(1), MUMBAI 3. THE CIT-4, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT(A)-8, MUMBAI 5. THE DR F BENCH, MUMBAI BY ORDER /TRUE COPY/ ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI