2015 (1) TMI 1221 - HC - Income Tax

Unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 - ITAT deleted the addition - Held that - The transaction of purchase and sale of shares done by the respondent assessee was genuine. Consequently it was also held by both the Authorities that addition under Section 68 of the Act was not called for. We find that the impugned order has been passed relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mukesh R. Marolia 2005 (12) TMI 457 - ITAT MUMBAI and the findings are essentially findings of facts. Hence no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. - Decided against revenue

Summary

Issues:
Appeal challenging Tribunal's order on unexplained cash credit and capital gain exemption under Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 contested the Tribunal's order regarding the addition of Rs. 62,69,761 as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, claimed by the Assessee as Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) entitled to exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. The primary question was whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the Assessee's claim.

2. The second issue revolved around the Tribunal's reliance on the decision of "Mukesh R. Marolia" by the Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay despite the department's non-acceptance and recommendation of Special Leave Petition (SLP) to the CBDT. The question was whether the Tribunal was justified in relying on this decision in the present case.

3. The facts leading to the appeal involved the Assessee selling shares of two companies and declaring income in the return. The Assessing Officer disallowed the capital gain claim, treating it as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act, based on a statement by Mr. Mukesh Chokshi regarding accommodation entries. However, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal, emphasizing the genuine nature of the transaction and the absence of challenge to the share purchase.

4. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, dismissed the Revenue's appeal, aligning with the decision in "Mukesh R. Marolia" and concluding that the share transactions were genuine, thus negating the need for addition under Section 68 of the Act. Both the CIT(A) and the Tribunal concurred on the authenticity of the transactions, based on factual findings. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration, and no perversity was found in the impugned order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.