Ita/10/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Kamini Finance And Investment Co. Ltd

ITA 10/2012BEFOREHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROYHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. SAIKIA (Amitava Roy,J) Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the Revenue. None is present on behalf of the respondent-assessee. The instant appeal puts to challenge the order dated 20.01.2003 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Gauhati Bench, Guwahati (hereinafter for short referred to as the Tribunal) in ITA No.170(Gau)/1998 pertaining to the assessment year 1993-94. The principal issue, is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the respondent-assessee’s claim of loss of Rs.4,36,800/- in the share business is to be accounted for vis-�-vis the assessment year 1993-94 while computing its taxable income. According to the respondent-assessee, though it had suffered the said loss in its share transactions comprising of 62,400 shares of Saptrishi Finance Ltd. Rs.4,36,000/- acquired by it in the financial year 1991-92, the Assessing Officer rejected that plea. In the appeals that successfully followed, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Guwahati and learned Tribunal having upheld the respondent-assessee’s claim, the Revenue is in appeal before this Court under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Act). The learned Tribunal, in particular while reiterating the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals) has concluded that the Revenue hadfailed to demonstrate that the respondent-assessee’s transactions in shares otherwise supported by documentary evidence resulting in loss of Rs.4,36,000/- to it are sham rendering the same to be a fraudulent device to avoid tax liability.A perusal of the order of the learned Tribunal discloses that it had analysed the facts in details while concurring with the findings of the learned Commissioner, Income Tax (Appeals). Mr. Sarma, though did endeavour to reiterate the above stand of the Revenue before us, on a consideration of the materials on record, we are left unconvinced vis-�-vis the substance and/or the import thereof. This Court amongst others in Commissioner of Income Tax -Vs- K.U. Ltd. (2008) 296 ITR 233 (Gau) had reiteratedthat in an appeal under Section 260A, no reappreciation of evidence on record is called for and in view of the concurrent findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal on facts rejected an identical plea of the Revenue on similar facts. On a cumulative consideration of all above, the appeal is considered to be lacking in merit and is dismissed. No costs.