The Revenue has brought the present appeal under Section 260A of the Incometax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for sake of brevity) against the order dated 21st January 2011 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'B' in IT(SS) A No.104/Ahd/2007, raising a following question proposing the same as substantial question of law. “ Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.45,58,000/ made on account of unexplained investment in shares on protective basis?”
2.0 The relevant facts involved in the appeal are that the assessee company is closely held company of the Kabra group. During the search, shares of the value of Rs.47,98,000/ were seized. It was found that these shares were sought to be transferred below their face value in the name of four persons. The Assessing Officer treated face value of the shares at Rs.10/ per share and held that all those shares belonged to one Shri S. N. Kabra in whose premises they were located. The Assessing Officer, therefore, made substantive addition of Rs.45,58,000/ in case of Mr. S. N. Kabra whereas the protective addition of same amount was made in case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also concluded that the assessee company had transferred shares of Rs.2,40,000/ only and the balance shares of Rs.45,58,000/ were not transferred. Consequently that amount was treated as unexplained investment and came to be added to the total income of the assessee on protective basis.
3.0 The CIT (Appeals) deleted the aforesaid addition holding that it was considered substantially on merits in case of the said individual Mr. Kabra. On a further appeal preferred by the Revenue, the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad confirmed the view of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, which is the order under challenge in this appeal.
4.0 Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior standing counsel for Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned counsel for the Income Tax Department candidly and fairly submitted that in case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vs. Satyanarayan J. Kabra [Tax Appeal No.737 of 2010] the very question of addition of those shares was considered by this Court and the appeal was dismissed by order dated 18th July 2011. He produced a copy of the order passed in that Tax Appeal No.737 of 2010.
5.0 In Tax Appeal No.737 of 2010, the following question was posed consideration of the Court.
“ Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.47,98,000/ made on account of unaccounted investment in shares?”
6.0 The appeal of the Revenue came to be dismissed by this High Court by holding that the assessee had given sufficient explanation and in that view the order of the authorities was based on cogent reason and the issue was factual.
7.0 In the impugned order, the Tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the Revenue observed as under:
“....The reasons are that at the time of search shares were found in the names of four persons as above. It is for them to explain the investment made therein. If explanation is not found satisfactory the addition can be made in their hands. SO far as the assessee company is concerned it has apparently no occasion to the holding of shares. There is no material to hold that investment was made by the assessee company in those shares even though they are standing in the names of four persons. Thus the ingredients of benami nature has not been established. This finding has been confirmed by the Tribunal and there is no reason to take a different view than what the Tribunal has taken. In absence of any material to the contrary we uphold the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.”
8.0 The above findings are properly arrived at. As seen, in view of order in Tax Appeal No.737 of 2010, the substantive addition of the shares is considered unsustainable and its deletion is upheld. In the present case the holding of the same shares by the assessee on protective basis is treated as unexplained investment. The same, obviously, cannot sustain.
9.0 In above conspectus of facts, the impugned order of the Tribunal is perfectly justified on facts and in law. No substantial question of law arises for consideration of this Court in this Tax Appeal. Therefore, the present Tax Appeal cannot be entertained.
10.0 Accordingly, this Tax Appeal is dismissed.
Amit [V. M. SAHAI, J.] [N. V. ANJARIA, J.]