DCIT Vs Pavankumar Bachhraj Chandan (ITAT Mumbai)
ITAT Mumbai held that addition for providing accommodation entries of bogus LTCG under section 68 of the Income Tax Act is rightly deleted by CIT(A) since assessee has duly discharged the primary onus. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Facts- In the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, the AO noted that the Kolkata Investigation Wing had undertaken investigation into 84 penny stocks which identified shares of M/s. Shree Shaleen Textile Limited as a penny stock. AO was of the view that the assessee failed to discharge the burden cast upon him to prove the LTCG claim and taking note that the SEBI had suspended the sale of this scrip vide order dated 1st Jan, 2015, he disallowed the LTCG claim and added the entire sale proceed of the shares u/s 68 of the Act and further made an addition of as commission to the entry operators for providing the bogus claim. CIT(A) deleted the addition. Being aggrieved, revenue has preferred the present appeal.
Conclusion- Held that the hon’ble Bench has affirmed the decision of the ld.CIT(A) taking into account the contents of the assessment order, the investigation report, the findings of the appellate order and a catena of judicial decisions involving the same penny stock wherein similar additions made by resorting to section 68 of the Act, have been deleted on the ground that the assessees discharged the primary onus. We do not find any reason for drawing any divergent view of the matter and in the light of the doctrine of judicial discipline requiring that benches of judicial and quasi-judicial bodies operate on principles of consistency, continuity, and certainty, we are of the view that when an identical issue, which had earlier arisen before the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal on identical facts and a view has been taken on the issue then judicial discipline would demand that a subsequent bench of the Tribunal hearing the same issue should follow the view taken by its earlier Coordinate Bench. Respectfully following, we hold that the addition was rightly deleted by the ld.CIT(A) and we affirm his decision. The grounds of appeal in this regard are, therefore, dismissed.
