TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (2) TMI 426
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e first mistake pointed out by the assessee, which is discussed in paragraph 1 to 5 of the petition, is that the Tribunal did not give reasons as to why the decision of the Apex Court reported in 292 ITR 682 is not applicable, i.e., according to the assessee, the Tribunal has simply stated that the said decision is not applicable, without giving any reasons. A similar contention was raised in respect of some other case laws also. The Ld Counsel also strongly placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court rendered in the case of ATM Forgings Vs. CIT (2013)(359 ITR 314)(P & H), wherein the High Court, by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kranti Associates P Ltd Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ished legal principles that the decision rendered by the non-jurisdictional High Courts have persuasive value and further what is binding is only the ratio of the decision. 3.2 According to Ld A.R, the failure of the Tribunal to discuss about the case laws relied upon by the assessee would render the order erroneous. We are unable to agree with the said view, as in our opinion, it is too general in nature. The assessees may place reliance on a number of case laws, both relevant and irrelevant. In that kind of situation, in our view, the Tribunal can be found fault with only if it failed to consider relevant case laws having direct or at least some remote nexus with the issue under consideration. The following observations made by Hon'ble M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was rendered in the case of Lovely Exports P Ltd in respect of Share Application Money received by a Limited Company and hence the ratio of the said decision cannot be applied on a simple cash credit issue examined in terms of sec.68 of the Act. The onus placed upon the assessee u/s 68 of the Act to prove the cash credits are well settled. We may also quote another example. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. K. Chinnathamban (292 ITR 682) to contend that the onus of proving deposits lies upon the person in whose name the deposit stands. In fact, there was no dispute with regard to the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. However, in the instant case, the issue was with re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w cannot be made good u/s 254(2) of the Act. 4. The next mistake pointed out by the assessee in paragraph 6 of the petition is that the Tribunal has omitted to consider the decision reported in 281 CTR 691 in disposing of the ground relating to violation of principles of natural justice with regard to the statement recorded from Shri Francis Joseph on 05-09-2012 behind the back of the assessee. This contention of the assessee has been specifically dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 10.6 of the order by duly considering the facts surrounding the issue. Thus, we notice that the Tribunal has already taken a conscious decision, which cannot be reviewed u/s 254(2) of the Act. 5. In paragraphs 7 to 10 of the petition, it is pointed out tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....such grounds shall be numbered consecutively. It is pertinent to mention here that the grounds urged by the assessee were not concise and they also included arguments and narratives, which were in gross violation of Rule 8 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 extracted above. Hence, in paragraph 6 of the order, the Tribunal has specifically observed that the assessee has taken many grounds and accordingly listed out the issues that require adjudication. Thus, the grounds numbered as 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were all related to the issues listed out in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal and they have been duly considered while adjudicating the relevant issues. Hence, the assessee is not correct in stating that the Tribunal has omitted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have helped to decide about the ownership of the bank account, he should have gathered them from the bank and produced the same before the AO. Even otherwise, in our view, the bank authorities can depose about the "apparent" only, whereas, the case of the revenue is that the apparent is not real. The Tribunal has held the revenue has substantiated their contentions with adequate materials. The case law relied upon by the assessee in this regard was related to a solitary transaction of telegraphic transfer by an employee of one office of assessee to employee of another office. Hence, under the peculiar facts prevailing in that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidences considered by the Tribunal cannot be considered as material....