2023 (8) TMI 95

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Delhi, it is stated in the Petition, to attend to two matters in the Supreme Court listed on 17th July, 2018, at the Delhi Airport, Petitioner was intercepted and searched by the Air Intelligence Unit (AIU) of Income Tax department. During the search proceedings, the Officer of AIU found Rs. 16 lakhs cash on Petitioner. The amount was seized under Panchnama and summons under Section 131(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was issued to Petitioner for recording statement in respect of seizure of cash. Petitioner's statement was recorded and Petitioner gave his own explanation along with documents to justify that the amount of Rs.16 lakhs was not undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation and passed an order dat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... evidences in support of attending matters in Supreme Court have been ignored and glossed over without considering the merit in the case. 7. The amount received by Petitioner from Mr. Biren Limbachiya Rs. 140 lacs was duly accounted for in the audited books of account and hence, section 69A cannot be invoked for the same. 4. The ITAT after hearing Petitioner and Revenue, by an order dated 12th May 2023, allowed the Appeal. The ITAT, on facts, accepted Petitioner's explanation that out of the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs, Petitioner had received Rs. 5,75,000/- in cash from one Sagun Naik and a sum of Rs. 17 lakhs from one Biren Limbachiya by 9 cheques from 10th April 2018 to 26th April 2018 and on perusal of the ledger account of the professi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that the ITAT has erred in considering the justification given by CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer and this Court is requested not to consider order of ITAT while adjudicating the present appeal. 7. It is of utmost importance that Revenue Officers are bound by the decisions of the Appellate Authority. Order of the Appellate Commissioner is binding on the Assistant Commissioner and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Additional Commissioner and below. The principal of juridical discipline requires that orders of the higher appellate authority should be followed by the subordinate authorities. For the affiant - Ambernath B. Khule to state that the ITAT erred and the Court should not consider the order of the ITAT is highly objectio....