2014 (4) TMI 1197 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of re-opening of assessment u/s 147 - addition on unexplained cash credit u/s 68 - Held that - We hold that the transaction of purchase of sale of shares cannot be held as bogus as no material has been found against the assessee directly. Since the additional disallowance has been deleted on merits, the issue of adjudicating the validity of reopening/reassessment proceedings is not required. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147.
2. Disallowance/addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act.

Detailed analysis:
Issue 1: Validity of re-opening of assessment under section 147
The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A) upholding the validity of the re-opening of the assessment under section 147. The re-assessment was initiated based on information obtained from a search and seizure operation conducted under section 132 of the Act in the case of certain companies involved in providing bogus speculation/profit loss. The AO re-opened the assessment and disallowed the long term capital gains earned from share transactions, treating it as unexplained investment under section 68. The AO relied on the statement of a director admitting to accommodation entries for various beneficiaries. However, the Tribunal noted that similar additions made in the hands of other beneficiaries based on the same statement had been deleted by the Tribunal as nothing incriminating was found against them. The Tribunal also referred to a specific case where the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that no material was found directly against the assessee. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares cannot be deemed as bogus as no direct evidence was found against the assessee.

Issue 2: Disallowance/addition of unexplained cash credit under section 68
The AO disallowed the long term capital gains earned from share transactions and treated it as unexplained investment under section 68. The addition was based on the statement of a director admitting to accommodation entries for beneficiaries. However, the Tribunal, considering the lack of direct evidence against the assessee and the similarity of facts with cases where additions were deleted, held that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares cannot be considered as bogus. As a result, the Tribunal deleted the additional disallowance on merits, rendering the issue of adjudicating the validity of re-opening/reassessment proceedings unnecessary.

In conclusion, the appeal filed by the Assessee was allowed by the Tribunal, emphasizing the lack of direct evidence against the assessee and the deletion of similar additions in other cases. The Tribunal held that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares could not be deemed as bogus, leading to the allowance of the appeal.