ITA NO.378/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO. 378 /AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 NISHANT CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD ... .......... . APPELLANT 801 - 802, REGENCY PLAZA ANAND NAGAR ROAD, SATELLITE AHMEDABAD 380 015 [PAN: AAACN372B] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5, AHMEDABAD ... .. ......... RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY URVASHI SHODHAN FOR THE A PPELLANT JAGDISH FOR THE R E SPOND ENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 26 .0 4 .2017 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 26. 0 4 .2017 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM: 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10 TH DECEMBER 2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SUBSTANCE, IS AGAINST LEARNED CIT(A) S UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS 42,09,41,720 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF RATNAKAR I II AND RATNAKAR IV PROJECTS. ITA NO.378/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY A DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSME NT YEAR I.E. 2011 - 12. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, AND THE DECISION SO TAKEN NOW STANDS REVERSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. LEARNED COMMISSIONER (DR) POINTS OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUN D OF APPEAL TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, RATHER THAN SIMPLY FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, BUT NOW THAT THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE WANT S THE TRIBUNAL TO SIMPLY FOLLOW THE DECISION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. THIS, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (DR), SHOWS INCONSISTENCY IN THE APPROACH OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DISTINGUIS HING FACTORS IN THE FACTS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. 4. WE SEE NO REASONS TO TAKE ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE MATTER THAN THE VIEW SO TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH. AS FOR THE POINT MADE BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (DR), WHATEVER MAY BE THE APPROA CH OF THE ASSESSEE, UNLESS ANY POINTS OF DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 ARE DEMONSTRATED TO US, WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. LEARNED COMMISSIONER (DR ) FAIRLY ACCEPTS THAT FACTS OF THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE MATERIAL SIMILAR. ON THESE FACTS, NOTHING TURNS ON THE INCONSISTENCY, EVEN IF THERE BE ANY, IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 BI NDS US. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE UPHOLD THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ITA NO.378/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 PAGE 3 OF 3 ADDITION OF RS 42,09,41,720 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ON MONEY. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESUL T, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017. SD/ - SD/ - MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (A CCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED, THE 26 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 7 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD