2016 (5) TMI 1421

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he case. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) has erred in disposing of the appeal without dealing with the basic ground on the question of reopening which goes to the very root of the matter, the contentions on which has been raised paras 1 o 4 of the statement of facts as per Ground No. B of the grounds of appeal. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) ought to have found that in view of the submission in the statement of facts as per para 4 and the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal relied on which is directly on this issue and also based on the judgments relied on especially 233 ITR 228 in sub-para (iii) the CIT(Appeals) was bound to follow the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal by way of judicial discipline. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... judgment as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496. 8. For the above and other grounds that may be advanced at the time of hearing it is prayed that the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) be set aside. 3. The brief facts taken in the grounds of the assessee are that the assessee had claimed difference of interest of Rs. 3,23,91,555/- disclosed in the balance sheet as interest receivable on fixed deposits. It was claimed that it was only a hypothetical income and there was no right to receive. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation of the assessee and accordingly, treated the said amount of Rs. 3,23,91,555/- as interest income and added the same to the income of the assessee. 4. The CIT(A) confirmed the acti....