M/s Mandi Alloys (P) Ltd., Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, Mandi Gobindgarh

CO 11/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1406 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SUSHIL VERMAN
• Keywords: Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 147; 68; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 222/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ITO, VS M/S MANDI ALLOYS (P) LTD. WARD 1, VILLAGE - AMBEY MAJRA, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN: AADCM9372M & CO/11/CHD/2015 ITA NO. 222/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 M/S MANDI ALLOYS (P) LTD. VS THE ITO, VILLAGE - AMBEY MAJRA, WARD 1, MANDI GOBINDGARH. MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN: AADCM9372M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL VERMAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DATE OF HEARING : 19.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.11.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) PATIALA DATED 16.12.2014 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 2 2. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.94,00,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF INTRODUCTION OF SHARE APPLICATION/SHARE CAPITAL BY THE PERSONS/ENTITIES, AS GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTI ONS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FOLLOWING THE HON'BLE ITAT'S DE CISION DATED 22.06.2012 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KISCO CASTING PV T. LTD. IN ITA NO.685/CHD/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 FOR DELETING T HE ADDITION OF RS.94,00,000/-, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT IS ALREADY IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AGAINST THE SAID DECI SION, WHICH IS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF T HE 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 UPHOLDI NG 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 ADDIT ION ON MERIT. 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT W AS CONDUCTED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OWNED BY SHRI TARU N GOYAL, C.A., NEW DELHI BY INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 15.09.2008. DURING THE SEARCH 3 OPERATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT SHRI TARUN GOYAL WAS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COMPANY I.E. M/S MANDI ALLOYS P VT. LTD. HAS INTRODUCED RS. 15 LACS AS SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY FROM TWO COMPANIES OWNED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL I.E. M/S GEEFCEE FINANCE LTD. RS. 10 LACS, M/S TEJA SVI INVESTIGATION PVT. LTD. RS. 5 LACS ( TOTAL RS. 15 L ACS). ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION, ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT THE ASSESSMENT STAG E, HAS NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS . 1.40 CR, LIST OF THE SAME WAS PROVIDED AT THE ASSES SMENT STAGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT GENUINENES S OF THESE TRANSACTIONS SHALL HAVE TO BE VERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND ALSO PRODUCED SEVERAL PERSONS AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED WHICH AR E PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, N OTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES I N A SUM OF RS. 94 LACS AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT RS. 9 4 LACS INTRODUCED ON SHARE CAPITAL BY 8 PERSONS/ENTIT LES ARE NOT GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE ADDITION OF SAME WAS MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMI TTED 4 THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE FOR RE-OPENING O F THE ASSESSMENT. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONS ON MERIT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED EXPLANATIONS REGARDING ALL 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES AND DETAILS OF THE SAME ARE REPROD UCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GENUINE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM THESE PERSONS. ALL THE SHARE APPLICANTS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX. CONFIRMATION ABOUT CONTRIBUTION OF SHARE CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY ALONGWITH THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND INCOME TAX RETURN S AND BALANCE SHEET ETC. WERE PRODUCED. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. THE DEPARTMENT SOLELY RELIED UPON STATEMENT OF SHRI TARUN GOYAL, HOWEVER, HE WAS NOT PRODUCED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HIS STATEMENT CAN NOT BE READ IN EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS IN SUPPO RT OF THE CONTENTION THAT ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO GENUINE TRANSACTIONS OF SHARE APPLICATION AND RECEIVED GENU INE SHARE APPLICATION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE IDENTICAL CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. IN IT A 685/2011, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH VIDE ORDER DATED 22.06.2012 ON IDENTICAL FACTS DELETED THE SIMILAR ADDITION. COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PLA CED ON RECORD. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT ISSUE I S COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALS O 5 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 CONDUCT ED 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 O N 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 A LSO FILED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT RELEVANT EVIDENCES REGARDING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS ARE ALREADY FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IDENTITY OF THE PERSO NS ARE ESTABLISHED AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PROVED BY ASSESSEE BY PROVING THE TRANSACTION THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IDENTITY OF THE SHAREHOLDER, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINES S AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN PROVED BY 6 ASSESSEE NOT ONLY AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE BUT ALSO AT THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS NOTE D THAT ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY REASONS AND WITHOUT A NY SPECIFIC ALLEGATION OR DOCUMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSE E, MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REFERRED TO SEV ERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS INCLUDING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF L OVELY EXPORTS PVT. LTD. 216 CTR 195 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT, IF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM ALLEGED BOGUS SHAREHOLDERS, WHOSE NAME S ARE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN DEPARTMENT IS FREE TO PROCEED TO REOPEN THEIR INDIVIDUAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BUT THESE AMOUNTS OF SHARE MONEY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDI GARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. IN ITA 685/2011 (SUPRA) AND NOTED THAT FACT REGARDING THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO SHRI TARUL GOYAL ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AND THEREFORE, ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) REPRODUCED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. IN THE APPE LLATE ORDER AND FOUND THAT THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE SQU ARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN TH E CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. WHEREIN THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) DELETED THE ADDITION. 7 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), FOLLOWING THE SAME ORDER O F TRIBUNAL, CONFIRMED RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AN D HELD THAT RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE IS VALID ON THE IDENTICAL FACT. THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONTENDED THAT ADDITION ON MERIT HAS BE EN WRONGLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RELIED UPON ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V NAVO DAYA CASTLES (P) LTD.50 TAXMAN.COM 110 AND DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NAVODAYA CASTL ES (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 TH E MATTER. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE 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 DIRECTORS REPOR T IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT PROJECT STARTS ITS 8 PRODUCTION ON 02.05.2005. PB-15 IS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME TO SHOW THA T ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 9,5 22/- WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. PB-25 IS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 UNDER APPEAL UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 10.10.2007 IN WHICH ALSO, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTIONED THAT NO BUSINESS/MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SAME EVIDENCES OF GENUINENESS OF THE RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WERE FURNISHED A T THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE AND ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAME IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. PB-1 IS COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO SHOW THAT ONLY INTEREST IN COME HAS BEEN DECLARED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMIN E SHRI TARUN GOYAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT RECENTLY I TAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KUNDLES LOH UDYOG V ITO IN ITA 133/2010 VIDE ORDER VIDE ORDER DATED 21.10.2015 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. 83 ITR 187 DELETED THE ADDITION UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFOR E, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO PRODUCTION STARTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THEREFORE, ADDITION U NDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 9 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERI AL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT STAGE FILED ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO PROVING IDENTITY O F THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE MATTER. NO BUSINESS/MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME BY SHOWING INTEREST INCOME AT RS. 9,522/-. SAME EVIDEN CES WERE FURNISHED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSEE RELIED UPON DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXP ORTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGA RH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P. LTD. THE SE ORDERS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH CLEARLY SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED GENUINE SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY FROM 8 PERSONS/ENTITIES. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P.LTD. (SUPRA) IS ALS O FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH ON IDENTICAL FACTS, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY SHRI TARUN GOYAL, C.A., NEW DEL HI. 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. 10 12. HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F AGARWAL WAREHOUSING & LEASING LTD. VS CIT 257 ITR 2 35 HELD AS UNDER : THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE BINDI NG ON ALL THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FUNCTIONING UNDER THE JURISDICT ION OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE REQ UIRE THAT THE ORDERS OF THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES SHOULD B E FOLLOWED UNRESERVEDLY BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO RIGHT TO COME TO A CONCLU SION CONTRARY TO THE ONE REACHED BY ANOTHER BENCH OF THE SAME TRIBUN AL ON THE SAME FACTS. IF THE TRIBUNAL WANTS TO TAKE AN OPINIO N DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY AN EARLIER BENCH, IT OUGHT TO PLAC E THE MATTER BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF THE TRIBUNAL SO THAT HE CAN HAVE THE CASE REFERRED TO A BENCH CONSISTING OF THREE OR MORE MEM BERS FOR WHICH THERE IS PROVISION IN THE INCOME TAX ACT ITSELF. AND FURTHER HELD ; HELD, THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) NO T ONLY COMMITTED JUDICIAL IMPROPRIETY BUT ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNA L. THE MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL WHO DECIDED THE APPEAL UPHOLDI NG THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) ALSO DID NOT OBSERVE DUE PROCEDURE. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, NO DIFFERENT FA CTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS, THE I TAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P.LTD. DELETED THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(AP PEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTI ONAL ITAT CHANDIGARH FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING THE ADDITION. NO INFIRMITY HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN TH E 11 ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, ADDITION ON MERIT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS ) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LOVELY EXPORTS LTD. (SUPRA) AND ORDER OF IT AT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P VT. LTD.(SUPRA). THE SOLE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT SINCE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS PENDING BEFO RE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THEREFORE, ADDITION SHOULD NOT B E DELETED. MERELY BECAUSE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS PENDING IN HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL IS NO GROUND TO TAKE CONTRARY VIEW IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF BHARAT ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPR A) AND ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF M /S KUNDLE LOH UDYOG (SUPRA), HOWEVER, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE SAME. SINCE THE I SSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED A BOVE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO GO IN DETAIL ON THIS ASPECT AT THIS STAGE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERI T IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 14. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITA T CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF M/S KISCO CASTING P. LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO CONFIRMED THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, ONCE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS 12 FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELETING ADDITION, THEREFORE, NO CONTRARY VIEW SHOU LD BE TAKEN ON IDENTICAL FACTS. FURTHER ISSUE OF RE-OPEN ING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 IS LEFT WITH ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY ONCE ADDITION ON MERIT HAVE BEEN DELETED AND CONFIRMED BY US. THEREFORE, THERE IS N O MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WEL L. THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH NOV., 2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD