2008 (9) TMI 990 - HC - Income Tax

Appeal dismissed against 43-day delay condonation where revenue produced no evidence; tribunal and CIT(A) findings upheld

Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Kolkata Versus M/s. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd.

HC dismissed the appeal challenging condonation of 43 days' delay, holding the revenue department failed to produce any evidence against the assessee. The ... Condonation of delay - delay of 43 days - HELD THAT:- It appears to us that the department has utterly failed to produce any evidence against the assessee and, therefore, after apprising of the said fact, the evidence and materials placed before the CIT (Appeals) as well as the Learned Tribunal, in our considered opinion, the Learned Tribunal came to the conclusion correctly. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order so passed by the learned Tribunal nor we find that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal since the case of the department is wholly dependent upon the evidence and nothing else which also speaks against the department which would be evident from the noted paragraph hereinabove. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Issues involved: Condonation of delay, Disallowance of short term capital loss, Disallowance of long term capital loss.Condonation of Delay: The High Court of Calcutta perused the application for condonation of delay and found sufficient cause to condone the delay of 43 days. The delay was thus condoned, and the application was allowed.Disallowance of Short Term Capital Loss and Long Term Capital Loss: The case involved the disallowance of short term capital loss of Rs. 1,26,93,209/- and long term capital loss of Rs. 84,94,251/- on the sale of shares. The Assessing Officer (A/O) questioned the correctness of the sale prices of unquoted shares, but the appellant provided detailed information on the sale transactions, including dates, costs, buyer details, and more. The court held that the appellant had fulfilled its burden of proof by providing comprehensive details, while the A/O failed to produce any evidence to prove the sales were not genuine. Consequently, the court directed the A/O to treat the sale of shares as genuine and allow the claimed losses. The department's lack of evidence against the assessee led the court to uphold the decision of the Learned Tribunal, dismissing the appeal as no substantial question of law was found to be involved.Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed, and all parties were directed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order.