TMI Blog2014 (6) TMI 227X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the Tribunal Order has been accepted by the department - the facts remaining the same for the year also, as were present before the Tribunal for the immediately two preceding assessment years and the immediately succeeding assessment year, the Tribunal Order needs must be followed - the addition made on substantive basis is the same as that made protectively is to be set aside – Decided in favour of Assessee. - ITA No. 3981/Del/2013 - - - Dated:- 30-5-2014 - Shri A. D. Jain And Shri D. K. Srivastava,JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Raj Kumar Shri Saurabh Goel, CAs For the Respondent : Smt. Shumana Sen, Sr. DR ORDER Per A. D. Jain, Judicial Member: This is Assessee s appeal for Assessment Year 2004-05 against ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee s case for AY 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2005-06 was taken for scrutiny assessment on the basis of information received from the Investigation Wing. It was observed that there were certain credit entries appearing in the bank account of the assessee company in State Bank of Saurashtra, Patparganj, Delhi. The directors of the assessee company stated that these bank accounts did not belong to the assessee company. These accounts were operated by one Shri B. Bhushan and his wife Smt. Renu Bhushan as directors of the assessee company. The present directors of the company submitted that the company has lodged a complaint/FIR against Shri B. Bhushan and his wife Smt. Renu Bhushan for cheating and forgery and the matter is pending till the police ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame lines as in the previous year. The cases of the assessee, Shri B. Bhushan and Smt. Renu Bhushan, for the above mentioned years were assessed by AO, Ward 36 (3), New Delhi and additions were made on substantive basis. The actual ownership of the bank account cannot be treated as settled till the time the police authorities concluded their investigations. The total credits appearing in the said account for the financial year 2003-04 under consideration comes to Rs.17,00,058/-. The account as on date exists in the name of the assessee company and the transactions reflected in it have not been disclosed anywhere. In view of the above facts, till the time the investigations are completed by the police authorities, in order to protect the int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it was therefore, that the ld. CIT (A) correctly confirmed the addition made. 8. We have heard the parties and have perused the record. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition made protectively in the hands of the present assessee, as though the same arguments regarding the Tribunal order (supra), as raised before us, were taken before him, no such order was filed. 9. The Tribunal Order, as filed before us, observes as follows:- 7. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and facts of the case. From the totality of the facts and the evidence, it is proved beyond doubt that the said bank accounts were owned by Mr. B.Bhushan and Smt. Renu Bhushan. For the sake of completeness, we mention the following facts whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veracity of the aforesaid Tribunal order has not been challenged before us by the department. It has also not been refuted that the said Tribunal Order has been accepted by the department. Therefore, the facts remaining the same for the year under consideration also, as were present before the Tribunal for the immediately two preceding assessment years and the immediately succeeding assessment year, the said Tribunal Order needs must be followed. 11. Further, it is also seen that in the assessment order (supra) of the AOP for the year under consideration, the addition made on substantive basis is the same as that made protectively in the present case. 12. In view of the above, following the Tribunal Order in the case of the AOP as wel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
