9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Year 2002-03 onwards and is not applicable to earlier assessment years - The purchase and sale of units by the Assessee was undoubtedly bona fide and this was accepted by the Assessing Officer - Decided in favor of the assessee Regarding failure of the Assessing Officer to invoke Section 40A (2)(b) in respect of Rs.2,37,500/- paid to Rajesh Mehta, CA, who is also a director of the respondent-assessee - Tribunal has observed and held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had recorded an entirely incorrect finding - It is not pointed out and shown to us how and why the finding recorded by the Tribunal is factually incorrect or perverse - Decided in favor of the assessee X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 in respect of these two additions. 3. The first aspect relates to dividend stripping. The Commissioner of Income Tax noticed that in two transactions, the respondent-assessee had purchased units of mutual funds before the record date and sold them on the next day. Dividend received on them being tax free was claimed and treated as income on which no tax was payable. Further, the assessee had claimed a loss on the sale of units being the difference between the purchase price and the sale price. The Commissioner of Income Tax noticed that the two transactions were accepted by the Assessing Officer without verification about the genuineness, nature and purpose of the transaction and without obtaining necessary details. The Tribunal in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is concerned, only one view is possible and that was taken by the Assessing Officer and that view was valid with reference to the assessment year 2001-02. Therefore, there was no occasion for the Commissioner to exercise his powers under Section 263 of the Act to revise the order passed by the Assessing Officer and tax the Assessee on the ground that the transaction was an attempt to avoid tax. The purchase and sale of units by the Assessee was undoubtedly bona fide and this was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Under these circumstances, the question of the Commissioner invoking his powers under Section 263 of the Act would not arise. Following the decision of this Court in Vikram Aditya and Associates Pvt. Ltd., we find no substanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Assessing Officer. If on being satisfied with these documents, the Assessing Officer did not make any further enquiry, then his order cannot be treated to be erroneous."
7. The Tribunal, therefore, has observed and held that the Commissioner of Income Tax had recorded an entirely incorrect finding. It is not pointed out and shown to us how and why the finding recorded by the Tribunal is factually incorrect or perverse. Even the question of law framed does not specifically require us to go into the said factual aspect.
8. In view of the aforesaid position, question of law mentioned above is answered in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
