2013 (12) TMI 1249

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... None appeared for respondent. Though, the name of Sri B. U. Verma has been shown in the cause list but when judgement dictated after hearing Sri D.D. Chopra learned counsel for the appellant, he stated that the name of Sri B.U.Verma is not mentioned in the cause list. According to the endorsement made by the office, already notice has been sent and served upon the respondent. Keeping in view the sufficiency of the service, we perused the record and proceed to decide the appeal finally after hearing learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In brief, during the assessment year 1991-92 the assessee has reflected sale of 9,00,000 shares of M/s Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. @ Rs. 11.50 per share, as per agreement dated 18.4.1990 to M/s S.R.M.B. Dai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y the A.O. Stand deleted." 4. Sri D.D. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention towards a Division Bench judgement and order of the Court dated 8th February, 2010 passed in Income Tax Appeal No. 43 of 2003 wherein it has been held that in case the tribunal had not discussed the controversy involved and adjudicated by unreasoned order, it shall amount to arbitrary exercise of power. 5. In the present case, though tribunal has extended the benefit of its earlier judgement while deciding the controversy as raised, but not indicated as to what and in which manner the case is identical to the earlier judgment. It was incumbent upon the tribunal to discuss the similarity between two controversy, one which was decided earlie....