TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 1042
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3) of the Act and violated the specific direction issued by Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench ITA No. 707/JP/2011, as no opportunity for cross examination of M/s Tinka Stone Pvt. (Formerly known as M/s Nagma Stone Pvt. Ltd.) whose statements are relied upon by the Ld. AO has been provided to the Appellant even on specific requests. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the addition of Rs. 10,00,000 made by the ld. Assessing officer being arbitrary, illegal and void. (Tax effect Rs. 3,65,925/-) 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant have duly discharged his duty by providing all the requisite evidences to prove his genuineness and the ld. AO have not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e submitted to the AO that he had not paid any amount to Tinka Stones during the year and these cheques are not related to the assessee and submitted various documents evidencing that the cheques are not related to the assessee in the erstwhile proceedings. On furnishing all the evidences, the assessee vehemently requested the AO to provide an opportunity of cross examination of Tinka Stone by exercising the power given under section 133/131 of the Act. However, the AO stated that the examination asked by the assessee could not be provided as the proceedings was getting time barred and therefore, he made an addition of Rs. 10 Lacs as undisclosed income of the assessee in the original assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e notice u/s 133(6) of the AO, the Bank has failed to send the copies of cheque. Even after that, the Ld. CIT (A) upheld the order of the AO on the ground that the assessee has not rebutted the evidence. No fresh additional evidence was collected or produced by AO therefore there was no need to rebut the same information again. Thus the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case while upholding the order of the AO. 6. It was further submitted that in the original proceedings of the case, each and every possible evidence that could have been gathered or furnished, have been duly provided by the assessee before the lower authorities viz. affidavits of directors stating that no repayment has been made and bank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings and the principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court considered the issue of hierarchical discipline in the case of Bank of Baroda Vs. H.C. Shrivatsava and another [2002] 122 Taxman 330 (BOM.). The High Court considered the action of the Assessing officer as an act of "Hierarchical indiscipline". The relevant observations are extracted below: "At this juncture, we cannot resist observing that the judgment delivered by the Income-tax Tribunal was very much binding on the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was bound to follow the judgments in its true letter and spirit. It was necess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... made by AO should be deleted. In support, our reference to drawn to the financial statements for the financial year ended 31.03.2019 wherein under the head "other income", credit balance of Rs. 13 lacs has been written off and credited to the profit/loss account. Further, a copy of ledger of Nagma Stones Pvt Ltd (now known as M/S Tinka Stones) was submitted which reflect opening credit balance of Rs. 10 lacs as on 1.4.2018 and entire balance written off as on 31.03.2019. 10. Per contra, the ld DR is heard who has submitted that a commission was issued to ACIT, Mumbai for making necessary enquires and in response, M/s Tinka Stones has filed confirmation/bank statement and claimed that advance money was returned back through bank, however, ....