TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1703
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Rs. 94,00,000/-, particularly when the Department is already in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court against the said decision, which is pending for adjudication. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd. reported at 342 ITR 369. 3. The assessee in the Cross Objection has challenged the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) in upholding the validity of re-assessment proceedings under section 148 of the Income Tax Act. The assessee also contended that ld. CIT(Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition on merit. 4. Briefly the facts of the case are that search operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the office premises owned by Shri Tarun Goyal, C.A., New Delhi by Investigation Wing of the department on 15.09.2008. During the search operation, it was found that Shri Tarun Goyal was providing accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer noted that assessee company i.e. M/s Mandi Alloys Pvt. Ltd. has introduced Rs. 15 lacs as share application money from two companies owned by Shri Tarun Goyal i.e. M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h vide order dated 22.06.2012 on identical facts deleted the similar addition. Copy of the order of the Tribunal was placed on record. It was, therefore, claimed that issue is covered in favour of the assessee. The assessee also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Engineering & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 on the proposition that when there were no manufacturing activities conducted by us in assessment year under appeal, there cannot be any addition in the hands of the assessee. 6. The submissions of the assessee in detail have been reproduced in the order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) which is forwarded to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The Assessing Officer, more or less reiterated the same facts. 7. The ld. CIT(Appeals), considering the material on record found that assessee has submitted details of assessment, PAN, audited accounts and balance sheet, bank statements, confirmation etc., shares allotted to concerned subscribers. In the case of Ms. Pinki Raj, the confirmation and bank statement (NRE account) are also filed. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, noted that relevant evidences regarding identity, genuineness of the t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of CIT V Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd.50 Taxman.com 110 and decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Navodaya Castles (P) Ltd. V CIT 56 Taxman.com 18 in which SLP filed by assessee has been dismissed. 10. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and submitted that sufficient evidences and material were produced before Assessing Officer at the assessment stage as well as at re-assessment stage to prove the identity of the shareholder, their credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction in the matter. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) as well as order of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Kisco Casting (P) Ltd. (supra). The ld. counsel for the assessee referred to PB-6 which is Director's Report in which it was mentioned that 'project starts its production on 02.05.2005'. PB-15 is Profit & Loss Account filed with the return of income to show that assessee was having only interest income of Rs. 9,522/- which was declared in the return of income. PB-25 is original assessment order for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....yal, C.A., New Delhi. The ld. CIT(Appeals) was, therefore, justified in following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd.(supra) as well as decision of ITAT Chandigarh Bench in the case of M/s Kisco Casting P.Ltd. 12. Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Agarwal Warehousing & Leasing Ltd. Vs CIT 257 ITR 235 held as under : "The orders passed by the Tribunal are binding on all the Revenue authorities functioning under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities Should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The Tribunal has no right to come to a conclusion contrary to the one reached by another Bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts. If the Tribunal wants to take an opinion different from the one taken by an earlier Bench, it ought to place the matter before the President of the Tribunal so that he can have the case referred to a Bench consisting of three or more members for which there is provision in the Income Tax Act itself." and further held ; Held, that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) not only ....