2010 (9) TMI 118 - HC - Income Tax

search and seizure - share application money which belonged a company of which assessee was the director on the day of search - AO did not accept the explanation given by the respondent-assessee - cash transition is only accommodative in nature to explain the availability of cash found at the time of search Held that - assessee has filed all the evidences of availability of cash - which is assessed u/s 143(2) - No defect has been pointed out in the explanation given by the assessee - no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) who has rightly deleted the addition made by the AO Accordingly appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 challenging Tribunal's order for Block Assessment Period 1st April, 1996 to 10th December, 2002 regarding addition of undisclosed income based on seized cash claimed as share application money.

Analysis:

1. Issue 1 - Challenge to Tribunal's Order:
The Income Tax Department filed an appeal challenging the Tribunal's order regarding the addition of '13,00,000/- as undisclosed income during the Block Assessment Period. The respondent-assessee claimed that the seized cash was share application money belonging to a company he was associated with. The CIT(A) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition, leading to the present appeal.

2. Issue 2 - Alleged Error by Tribunal:
The revenue contended that the Tribunal erred in upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. It was argued that the company providing the share application money was connected to the respondent-assessee, raising suspicions about the transaction's legitimacy. The revenue claimed that the cash entry was merely accommodative and did not provide a genuine explanation for the cash found during the search.

3. Issue 3 - Judicial Review and Evidentiary Support:
Upon review, the Court agreed with the CIT(A) and the Tribunal that the respondent-assessee had submitted sufficient evidence regarding the '13,00,000/- share application money. The Court noted that the same Assessing Officer had accepted the transaction in a previous assessment of the company providing the funds, indicating consistency in the treatment of the transaction.

4. Issue 4 - Lack of New Evidence and Change of Opinion:
The Court emphasized that the Assessing Officer's change of opinion without new incriminating evidence was unjustified. The Tribunal's order highlighted the absence of defects in the explanations provided by the assessee, reinforcing the legitimacy of the transaction. The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's grounds, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition.

5. Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the revenue's appeal and dismissed it in limine, upholding the decisions of the CIT(A) and the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance of consistent treatment of evidence and the lack of new incriminating factors to warrant a change in the initial assessment.