2011 (12) TMI 407 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal affirms CIT(A) order, rejects Department appeals & assessee cross-objections

The Tribunal confirmed the order of the CIT(A) for the assessment years in question, dismissing the Department's appeals and the assessee's ... Addition - long-term capital gain and unexplained commission expenditure - In appeal for asst. yr. 2002-03, the Department is objecting in deleting the addition of ₹ 12,48,481 made on account of accommodation entry taken for long-term capital gain and unexplained commission expenditure for assessment - Decided in favor of the assessee Issues: Appeals by Department and cross-objections by assessee for asst. yrs. 2002-03, 2003-04, and 2004-05 involving deletion of addition made on account of accommodation entry for long-term capital gain and unexplained commission expenditure.Analysis:1. Common Issues: The appeals and cross-objections involved common issues across the three assessment years, leading to their joint disposal.2. Cross-objections Dismissal: The cross-objections by the assessee were not pressed by the learned Authorized Representative and were consequently dismissed as not pressed.3. Grounds of Appeal: The Department objected to the deletion of additions made on account of accommodation entry for long-term capital gain and unexplained commission expenditure for the respective assessment years.4. Legal Precedent: The counsel of the assessee cited a similar case, Dalpat Singh Choudhary vs. Asstt. CIT, where the Tribunal had decided in favor of the assessee regarding the issue of accommodation entry for long-term capital gain.5. Tribunal's Findings: After considering submissions and evidence, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee based on the precedent set in the case of Dalpat Singh Choudhary. The Tribunal highlighted that the purchase of shares was genuine, supported by proper documentation, and the burden of proof lay with the Department to establish any wrongdoing, which was not adequately done.6. Judicial Decisions: The Tribunal referenced various judicial decisions where similar issues were resolved in favor of the assessee, emphasizing the importance of concrete evidence to deny the claim of the assessee regarding the sale of shares.7. Confirmation of Order: Given the similarity of facts and the precedent set by the earlier case, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the learned CIT(A) for all the assessment years in question.8. Final Decision: Consequently, the appeals of the Department and the cross-objections of the assessee were dismissed based on the findings and legal precedents discussed during the proceedings.