Smt. Sjarda Devi Mittal, Indore V. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Indore

MA 4/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8095 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KESHAVE SAXENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI; S N AGARWAL
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Document seized; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries; Documents seized
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. M.A.NO.03/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NO. 25 & C.O. 19/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2005 - 06 SHRI OM PRAKASH MITTAL, (HUF). ACIT, 2(1), INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.04 & 05 /IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 10 & 11 AND C.O.NOS. 14 & 15/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2006 - 07 S MT. SHARDA DEVI MI TTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT, 2(1), INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.0 6 & 07 /IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 08 & 09 AND C.O.NOS. 23 & 24/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 200 5 - 06 M/S.MALWA LAMINATORS, 403, RAJANI BHAWAN, M. G. ROAD, ACIT, RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT R ESPONDENT -: 2: - 2 M.A.NO.08 & 09/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 12 & 14/IND/2011 & C. O. NOS. 21 & 22/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2006 - 07 SHRI MAHESH MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT, RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO. 10, 11 & 12/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 27 TO 29/IND/2011 AND C.O.NOS. 18, 16 AND 17/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 SMT. URMILA MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT, RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO .13/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NO. 17/IND/2011 AND C.O. NO.20/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2006 - 07 SHRI MAHESH MITTAL, (HUF). 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT, 2(1), RANGE 2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.14, 15 & 16/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 23, 24 & 15/IND/2011 AND C.O.NOS. 35, 34 & 33/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 SMT. VANDANA MITTAL, ACIT, -: 3: - 3 362, SAKET NAGAR, RANGE - 2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.17 & 18/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 79,.16 & 21/IND/2011 AND C.O.NOS. 32 & 31/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2006 - 07 SHRI PRAVIN MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.19, 20 & 21/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 21 & 22 & 89/IND/2011 AND C.O.NOS. 13 & 12/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2006 - 07 & 07 - 08 SHRI KAPIL MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.22 TO 27/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 03 TO 07/IND/2011, 90/IND/2011 AND C.O.NOS. 25 TO 29/IND/2011 -: 4: - 4 A.Y. : 2002 - 03 TO 2007 - 08 M/S.NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LIMITED, ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO. 38 TO 43/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 03 TO 07/IND/2011 AND 90/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2002 - 03 TO 2007 - 08 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, M/S.NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LIMITED, INDORE. VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.44, 45 & 46/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 12, 14 & 17/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2006 - 07 & 2006 - 07 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. SHRI MAHESH MITTAL/MAHESH MITTAL (HUF), 21/3, OLD PALASIA, VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.47, 48 & 49/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 23, 24 & 15/IND/2011) A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 ACIT,2(1), SMT. VANDANA MITTAL, -: 5: - 5 RANGE - 2, INDORE. VS. 362, SAKET NAGAR, INDORE. APPLICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.50,51 & 52/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 21 & 22 & 89/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2006 - 07 & 07 - 08 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. SHRI KAPIL MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, INDORE. VS APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.53 & 54/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 16 & 79/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2006 - 07 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. SHRI PRAVIN MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, INDORE. VS APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.55 & 56/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 10 & 11/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2006 - 07 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE. SMT. SHARDA DEVI MITTA L, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, INDORE. VS -: 6: - 6 APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.57 & 58/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 08 & 09/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04 & 2005 - 06 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE M/S.MALWA LAMINATORS, 403, RAJANI BHAWAN, M. G. ROAD, VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO. 59 /IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NO. 25/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2005-06 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE SHRI OM PRAKASH MITTAL, (HUF). VS INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT M.A.NO.60, 61 & 62/IND/2012 ARISING OUT OF I.T(SS).A.NOS. 27 TO 29/IND/2011 A.Y. : 2003 - 04, 2005 - 06 & 2006 - 07 ACIT,2(1), RANGE-2, INDORE VS. SMT. URMILA MITTAL, 21/3, OLD PALASIA, INDORE. APP LICANT RESPONDENT -: 7: - 7 DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI KESHAVE SAXENA, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.AGARWAL AND SHRI PANKAJ MONGRA, CAS DATE OF HEARING : 20.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 . 0 5 .201 2 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THESE MISC. APPLICATIONS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL DATED 3 0 TH DECEMBER, 2011, PASSED IN THE CASE OF NARMADA EXTRU SIONS LIMITED AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS/HUF/FIRMS OF MITTAL G ROUP. THROUGH THESE PETITIONS, BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE POINTED OUT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKE S WHICH ARE REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961. 2. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MISC. PETITIONS FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE AND FIND THAT CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. FIRST WE DEAL WITH THE MISC. PETITI ON FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH -: 8: - 8 BOOK WAS IMPOUNDED FOR TEN MONTHS FROM 1.8.2005 TO 2.5.2006 AND NOT FOR ONE MONTH AS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 2.5.2006, WHICH AMOUNTS TO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THIS REGARD, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE O F NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LIMITED AND OTHERS, HAD REPRODUCED COPY OF ALLEGED CASH BOOK OF LUNKAD GROUP FOR THE PERIOD OF ONE MONTH ONLY. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. S ENIOR DR HAD CLAIMED THAT SAID CASH BOOK WAS FOR THE PERIOD OF TEN MONTHS AND NOT FOR ONE MONTH AS CONSIDERED BY THE B ENCH. ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE SAID ALLEGED CASH BOOK OF LUNKAD GROUP FOR TEN MONTHS WAS NEVER PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THUS, THE SAME CANN OT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE , THE DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AGAI NST THE ASSESSEE UNTIL THE SAME WAS PROVIDED AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SAME AND -: 9: - 9 FOR THIS PURPOSE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KISHAN CHAND CHELARAM, 125 ITR 713. 3. WE HAD GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 20-11, WHEREIN AT PAGE 16 TO 24 SUCH CAS H BOOK WAS REPRODUCED GIVING DATE-WISE ENTRY OF CASH RECEIPT AND PAYMENT FROM 3.4.2006 TO 1.5.2006. THIS CASH BO OK WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES O F LUNKAD GROUP. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP FROM WHERE THIS CASH BOOK WAS IMPOUNDED ON 2.5.2006, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION O NLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH BOOK FOR ONE MONTH AND NOT FOR THE PERIOD STATED BY LD. CIT DR. THE ADDITION WAS ALSO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF LUNKAD GROUP IN THE HANDS OF L UNKAD GROUP IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WITH RESPECT T O THE CASH BOOK FOR ONE MONTH I.E. 3.4.2006 TO 1.5.2006, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS CONFIRME D BY THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS FURTHER CONFI RMED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31 ST JANUARY, 2012. THUS, WHEN IN THE CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP OF COMPANIES ITSELF, THE C ONCERNED -: 10: - 10 ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE LUNKAD GROUP OF COMPANIES HAD CONSCIOUSLY ADDED AMOUNT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ONE M ONTH CASH BOOK, THERE IS NO REASON TO CONSIDER THE CASH BOOK EXCEPT FOR THAT PERIOD IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE I.E. MITTAL GROUP. FURTHERMORE, IT IS NOT A MISTAKE MUCH LESS AN APPAR ENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITS MI SC. PETITION. 4. BY REFERRING TO THE GROUND RAISED AT 2(B) OF M.A., THE LD. CIT DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO.32 OF THE TRIB UNALS ORDER, SIXTH LINE FROM TOP, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- WE FOUND THAT IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF LUNKAD GROUP IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO ISSUE OF CHEQUE TO THE BENEFICIARIES. AS PER LD. CIT DR, IN VIEW OF THIS FINDING OF THE T RIBUNAL, THE MODUS OPERANDI OF LUNKAD GROUP WAS ACCEPTED BY HON' BLE MEMBERS, THE ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THE WHOLE BLOCK PERIOD, INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING IT TO ONE MONT H AND INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN THAT LUNKAD GROUP WAS ENG AGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. -: 11: - 11 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGE NO.32 TOWARD S WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED BY LD. CIT DR, WHER EIN ABOVE WORDINGS FOUND PLACE. WE FOUND THAT FROM PAGE 31 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THE BENCH HAVE RECORDED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT DR DURING COURSE OF HEARING BE FORE US. AT PAGE 31, SECOND LINE STARTS WITH THE WORD IN VI EW OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT DR HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP WAS FINANCIALLY VERY SOUND EARNING _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _AFTER ACCEPT ING CASH FROM IT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING SEARCH_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ PAID ANY TAX. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO UNS ECURED LOAN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ WERE NEVE R PAID BACK TO THE LUNKAD GROUP. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP, ENTIRE SHARE CAPITAL WAS FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001- 02. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, HE CONTENDED THAT MITTAL GROUP IS _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ONE OF THE BE NEFICIARIES. WE FOUND THAT IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF LU NKAD GROUP _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ BENEFICIARIES. IN SOME INSTANCE, THE CHEQUES_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _TO THE BENE FICIARIES. LIST OF BANK ACCOUNT _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ CASH IS DEPOSITED. -: 12: - 12 6. IT IS QUITE CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT FROM PAGE 31 ONWARDS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS JUST NARRATED THE CONTENT IONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFO RE US. THERE IS NO OBSERVATION OF BENCH IN THE ABOVE PARA, HOWEVER DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE AT SIXTH LINE OF PAGE 32, AS POINTED OUT BY LD. CIT DR WE HAS BEEN TYPED IN PLACE OF HE. SINCE IT IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, WE HEREBY RECTIFY THE SAME AND DIRECT THAT IT SHOULD BE READ AS HE FOUND THAT IN VARIOUS DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF LUNKAD GROUP IN WHICH CASH WAS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO I SSUE OF CHEQUES TO THE BENEFICIARIES. AFTER CORRECTION OF THIS TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE THERE IS NO REASON TO SAY THA T THIS WAS THE FINDING OF TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT SH OULD BE INFERRED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE MODUS OPERA NDI. HOWEVER, FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY TRIBUNAL IN P ARA 20 OF PAGE 51 OF ITS ORDER. 7. IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 2(C) O F ITS MISC.PETITION THAT HON'BLE MEMBERS HAD HELD THAT GE NUINENESS -: 13: - 13 OF TRANSACTION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08, BECAUSE OF IMPOUNDED PAPERS, BUT IT WAS ESTABLI SHED FOR OTHER YEARS, AS ACCORDING TO THE HON'BLE MEMBERS PA PERS WERE NOT IMPOUNDED FOR OTHER YEARS,( WHICH IS NOT CORREC T AS DISCUSSED IN POINT (A) ). WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS. FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FOUND THAT WHILE DEALING WITH THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE TO THE EFFECT THAT PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE NO T MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF ADDITIONS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE FINDING OF FACT THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF LUNKAD GROUP, THE BENCH HAS EXPRESSED THEIR VIEW S THAT BECAUSE OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AT LUNK AD GROUP DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AT LUNKAD GROUP, THE UN SECURED LOANS GIVEN DURING THIS PERIOD TO THE ASSESSEE GROU P HAD BECOME DOUBTFUL. WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON THE PLEA THAT ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF LUNKAD GROUP THEREFORE NO FURTHER ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP WHICH AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION, TH E BENCH HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT IN TAKING THIS -: 14: - 14 VIEW, ACCORDINGLY, REVERSED HIS ORDER FOR SUCH DELE TION AND HELD THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS JUSTIFIED IN FILING AP PEALS BEFORE THE I.T.A.T. AGAINST THESE ORDERS OF CIT(A) AND THE RE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THESE APPEALS ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONS TO BE MADE IN RESPECTIVE HANDS OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. FURTHERMOR E, AT PARA 20, PAGE 52 OF THE ORDER DATED 30 TH DEC.,2011, WHILE DEALING WITH THE ISSUE ON MERIT, AFTER APPRECIATING THE ENT IRE FACTS OF THE CASE THE BENCH HAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED AS FOLLOWS :- WE FOUND THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE LOAN TRANSACTION HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH INDICATED RECEIPT AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN, PAYMENT OF INTEREST THEREON AND DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST PAID THEREON. 8. THUS, THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO THE EF FECT THAT IT WAS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HAS NO MERIT. -: 15: - 15 9. THE REVENUE HAS ALSO ALLEGED THAT WHEN THE TRIBUNAL HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF LUNKAD GROUP VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.01.2012, IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, O N THE GROUND THAT THEY COULD NOT PROVIDE NAMES AND ADDRES S OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS, THEN WHY A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROUP, ORDER DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF LUNKAD GRO UP DATED 31.1.2012, WHEREIN ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITAL RECEIVED BY IT. HOWEVER, IT IS CLEAR FROM T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROU P THAT NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT OF MITTAL GROUP WITH RESPECT TO SHARE CAPITAL/SHARE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM LUNKAD GRO UP. . WHATEVER SHARE CAPITAL WAS RECEIVED BY MITTAL GROUP FROM LUNKAD GROUP HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AFTER DISCUSSING THE IDENTITY ETC. OF LUNKAD GROUP OF COMPANIES. HOWEVER, ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROUP ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED FROM -: 16: - 16 LUNKAD GROUP. THUS, THE ALLEGATION OF REVENUE HAS N O LEGS TO STAND THAT THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE ORDER OF M ITTAL GROUP AND LUNKAD GROUP. IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROUP ADDI TION WAS CHALLENGED IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND NOT SH ARE CAPITAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROUP, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ONLY PRO VIDED NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CASH CREDITORS, BUT ALSO LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS. AND. MERELY BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE PHYSICALLY CASH CREDITOR BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE U/S 68. THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT DUE TO THE DISPUTE BETWEEN T HE DEPARTMENT AND LUNKAD GROUP AND THE WRIT PETITION F ILED BY THE LUNKAD GROUP IN THE M.P. HIGH COURT, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE LUNKAD GROUP IN PERSON BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE LOAN CREDITOR FOR CONFIRMING THE CONT ENTS OF THE CONFIRMATION AND AFFIDAVIT, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BY TRIBUNAL TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, NE ITHER THERE WAS ANY CONTRADICTION NOR THERE WAS ANY MISTAKE IN THE ORDER -: 17: - 17 OF THE TRIBUNAL MUCH LESS AN APPARENT MISTAKE AS PO INTED OUT IN THE MISC. APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHIC H COULD BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2). 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE MAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. IT I S PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE AND CLARIFY THAT THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2011, WAS PASSED IN GROUP CASES COMPRISING OF NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LIMITED AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS/HUF/FIRMS OF THE MITTAL GROUP. THUS, TH E DECISIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 20 IS TO BE APPLIED IN CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEES AND NOT ONLY TO THE CA SE OF NARMADA EXTRUSIONS LIMITED. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE UN SECURED LOANS OUTSTANDING TO LUNKAD GROUP OF COMPANIES, AT PARA 11 ON PAGE 31. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT OF OUTSTAN DING LOAN WAS STATED TO BE RS. 4.82 CRORES IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11, WHEREAS ACTUAL FIGURE OF LOAN WAS RS. 2,97,252/ - AS CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.10.2 011. AS IT IS -: 18: - 18 AN APPARENT MISTAKE, WE RECTIFY THE SAME AND DIRECT THAT UNSECURED LOAN OUTSTANDING TO LUNKAD GROUP IS TO BE READ AS RS. 2,97,252/- INSTEAD OF RS. 4.82 CRORES. 14. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUND NO.2 OF ASSESSEES MISC. APPLICATION, WE CLARIFY THAT THE ORDER WAS PASSED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY T HE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEES. CONSOLIDATED ORDER WAS PASSED, WHEREIN WE FIRST DEALT WITH THE REVENUES A PPEALS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM LUNKAD GROUP, WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE LD.CIT (A) ON THE PLEA OF DOUBLE ADDITION, BY STATING THAT CONFIR MING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF LOANS RECEIV ED BY IT AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. AFTER GIVING DETAILED FI NDING AND RELYING ON VARIOUS HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION S, WE HOLD THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE A DDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON THE PLEA OF DOUBLE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY CIT(A) TO THE EFFECT THAT MODUS OPERANDI IN PROVIDING THE ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIA RIES HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LUNKAD GROUP SO FAR AND THAT L UNKAD GROUP HAVE ISSUED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS TO THE VARIO US -: 19: - 19 BENEFICIARIES IN SUPPORT OF HAVING GIVEN GENUINE LO AN AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY HAVE NOT BEEN DISTURBED BY TRIBUNAL BUT RATHER CONFIRMED AS PER OBSERVATIONS MADE IN PA RA 20 OF THE ORDER. AFTER REVERSING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON T HE GROUND OF DOUBLE ADDITION, WE HAVE DEALT ON MERITS WITH RESPE CT TO THE ADDITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPE CT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM LUNKAD GROUP, AND AFTER GIVING DETAILED OBSERVATIONS, RECORDED OUR FINDING AND CONCLUSION A T PAGE 51 PARA 20, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DO CUMENTS FOUND DURING SURVEY AT LUNKAD GROUP FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 1.5.2006 WAS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SUCH ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE H ANDS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WITH RESPECT TO THE AMOUNT OF CASH FOUND TO BE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE LUNKAD GROUP AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT I.E. CASH BOOK FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 2.5.2006 FOUND AT T HE PREMISES OF LUNKAD GROUP DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y, AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EX AMINATION. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT MERE PRESUMPTIONS W ITHOUT -: 20: - 20 ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IN R ESPECT OF THE EARLIER YEARS THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE GIVEN CASH TO THE LUNKAD GROUP FOR GETTING UNSECURED LOAN, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO OBSERVED THAT BEFORE MAKING ADDITION OR DISALL OWING THE CASH CREDIT, ON THE PLEA OF GENUINENESS, THE DEPART MENT IS REQUIRED TO BRING ON RECORD SOME EVIDENCE TO INDICA TE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CASH IN CONSIDERATION OF CHEQUES SO ISSUED. WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE, MUCH LESS A COGENT EVIDENCE, IT IS NOT LEGALLY JUSTIFIED TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS OR MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY FOR WHICH NO MATERIAL MUCH LESS A COGENT MATERIAL WAS I N THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT. AFTER RECORDING ALL T HESE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS, THE TRIBUNAL HAVE, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, RESTORED THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME IN TERMS OF OUR OBSERVATIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 20. 15. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE THAT ADDITION WAS HELD T O BE JUSTIFIED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND THAT T OO TO THE EXTENT OF ENTRIES, IF ANY, IN THE INCRIMINATING DOC UMENTS SO FOUND AT LUNKAD GROUP PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD 1.4. 2006 TO -: 21: - 21 12.5.2006., AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS E XAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE. TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO SCRUTINIZE THE INCRIMINATING DOCUME NT/CASH BOOK SO FOUND AT LUNKAD GROUP DURING SURVEY, AND IF NAME OF ANY OF PRESENT ASSESSEE APPEARS IN THE SAID INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS THEN AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EX AMINATION, REQUIRED ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE. FOR THE OTHER YEARS, WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE O F ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE LO AN CREDITORS IN PERSON TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONFIRMATIONS AND AFF IDAVITS SO FILED WITH REGARD TO THESE TRANSACTIONS. 16. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS REVERSED ONLY ON THE PLEA OF DOUBLE ADDITION, AND ON MERITS OF THE ADDIT ION, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DECIDE IN TERMS OF OUR PRECISE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN PARA 20. 17. WE FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT LUNKAD GROUP HAVE ISSUE D CONFIRMATORY LETTERS TO THE VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES I N SUPPORT OF HAVING GIVEN GENUINE LOANS AND SHARE APPLICATION MO NEY. THE -: 22: - 22 LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT MODUS OPERANDI IN PRO VIDING ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIES HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LUNKAD GROUP SO FAR. KEEPING IN VIEW THESE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED, THE MATTER WITH REGAR D TO UNSECURED LOANS IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AS PE R DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN PARA 20. 18. ONE MORE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT AT PAGE NO. 46, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THIS ADDITION IS MOTHERING TO DO WITH GENUINENESS OF LOAN RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE FROM LUNKAD GROUP. 19. AS THIS IS TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE, THE WORD MOTHERING IS TO BE READ AS NOTHING . 20. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ALLEGED THE OBSERVATIONS GIVEN IN PARA 21. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAME AND FOUND TH AT IN PARA 21, THE BENCH HAS DIRECTED TO RESTRICT THE ADD ITION AT PEAK OF THE LOAN. WE CLARIFY HERE THAT PARA 21 HAS BEEN MEANT TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION AT PEAK OF THE LOAN AMOUNT ONLY IN CASE WHILE RE-DECIDING THE ISSUE AS PER OUR DIRECTIONS G IVEN IN PARA 20, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN REACH TO THE SAME C ONCLUSION. -: 23: - 23 PARA NO.21 WILL COME INTO OPERATION ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE-DECIDES THE ISSUE AS PER THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN PARA 20 OF THE ORDER. 21. AS NAME OF NARMADA WAS FOUND PLACE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS/CASH BOOK AT LUNKAD GROUP DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY, WE HAVE DIRECTED THAT WHILE REDECIDING THE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD GIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION A ND ONLY AFTER SATISFYING THAT IT IS THE SAME NARMADA EXTRU SIONS LIMITED THE DECISION IS TO BE TAKEN. 22. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AT LIBERTY TO VERIFY IF TH E NAME OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS, HUFS/FIRMS OF LUNKAD GROUP FI ND PLACE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS/CASH BOOK FOUND DURING SURV EY AT LUNKAD GROUP. THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE RESPECTIVE HANDS AFTER PROVIDING DU E OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 23. IN THE MISC. PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WA S ALSO ALLEGED THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FO UND BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM ASSESSEES PREMISES EITHER DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OR POST SEARCH INQUIRY, NO ADDITION SHOUL D HAVE BEEN -: 24: - 24 MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE VA RIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED IN THE MISC. PETITION. IN THIS REGA RD, WE FOUND THAT A DETAILED FINDING HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE TR IBUNAL AT PAGE 51 PARA 20 WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTUM AND MANN ER OF ADDITIONS TO BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 , KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE CASH BOOK FOUND DURING COURSE OF SUR VEY AT LUNKAD GROUP. THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL MUCH LESS AN APPARENT MISTAKE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES M. A. IS DISMISSED. 24. IN GROUND NOS. 2.4.1 AND 2.4.2 OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT I N PARA 15 AT PAGES 44 AND 45, THE BENCH HAS DISCUSSED AND RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 218 ITR 239 AND 88 ITR 323 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF I.T.A.T ., SPECIAL BENCH REPORTED IN 111 ITJ 346, FOR REVERSING THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE PLEA OF DOUBLE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THE SE DECISIONS WERE NEITHER QUOTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR BY THE DEPA RTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS URGED TO IGNORE THESE DECISIONS AND TO AGAIN RECONSIDER THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REVER SING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). -: 25: - 25 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND T HAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLEA THAT THE ADDITION HAS A LREADY BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF LUNKAD GROUP, THEREBY MAK ING ADDITION AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE ADDITION, WAS REVERSED BY TRIBUNAL. WHILE REVERSING THE DECISION OF CIT(A), THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED TWO DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND A DECISION OF I.T.A.T. SPE CIAL BENCH WHICH SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ADDITION SHO ULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF RIGHT PERSON NOT-WITH-STANDING THE FACT THAT THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED AND ASSESS ED IN THE HANDS OF WRONG PERSON. EVEN THOUGH THESE DECISIONS WERE NEITHER CITED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US BUT THE SAME HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE BENCH WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE . AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT ONLY EMPOWERED BUT ALSO DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ON THE ISSUE BY ANY HIGH CO URT OR SUPREME COURT OR/AND CO-ORDINATE BENCH. THE JUDICIA L PRONOUNCEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IS LAW OF LA ND. -: 26: - 26 MERELY BECAUSE THESE DECISIONS WERE NOT CITED EITHE R BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE LEARNED DR, THE BENCH CANNOT BE PRECLUDED FROM THE RIGHT TO APPLY THE PRO POSITION LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THEIR DECISIONS W HICH SUPPORTS THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION OF TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND TAKE N BY ASSESSEE IN ITS M. A. FOR RECONSIDERING THE DECISIO N OF THE TRIBUNAL REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY RELYI NG ON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT AND I.T.A.T. SPECIAL BEN CH. 26. IN THE RESULT, GROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE AT SERIAL NOS. 2.4.1 AND 2.4.2 OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE D ISMISSED. 27. IN GROUND NO. 2.7.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLEGED THAT I N PARA 16 AT PAGE 46 OF THE ORDER IN LAST FOUR LINES AND AT PAGE 47 THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS OBSERVED AS WE HAVE REVERSED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE U/S 68, ON SUCH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY 28. IT WAS FURTHER ALLEGED THAT IN PARA 8 AT PAGE 47 OF THE ORDER, THE HON'BLE BENCH HAS FURTHER OBSERVED -: 27: - 27 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ALLOW ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITS FAVOUR. 29. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FINDING ON MERITS OF THE CASE WAS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 20 WHEREAS IN PAR A 17 THE TRIBUNAL HAS GIVEN ITS DECISION IN RESPECT OF REVEN UES APPEAL IN DELETING THE ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT O F DOUBLE ADDITION. THUS, THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBU NAL IN THE LAST FOUR LINES AT PAGE 46 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, DES ERVES TO BE EXPUNGED. 30. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ISSUE RAISE D BY THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION BY THE CIT(A) ON THE PLEA OF DOUBLE ADDITION HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 15, THE CONCLUSION OF WHICH WAS GIVEN IN PA RA 17. HOWEVER, ON MERITS, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 20 AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AS PER THE DIREC TIONS GIVEN IN PARA 20. -: 28: - 28 31. IN VIEW OF SEPARATE CONCLUSIONS GIVEN ON MERITS OF ADDITION BY TRIBUNAL AT PARA 20, THE LAST FOUR LINE S OF PAGE 46 APPEAR TO BE MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. WE, THER EFORE, EXPUNGE LAST FOUR LINES OF PAGE 46 AS REPRODUCED AB OVE. 32. IN THE RESULT, THE DECISION ON THE REVENUES APPEAL IS TO BE READ AS IN THE RESULT, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS R EVERSED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE ADDIT IONS. 33. IN GROUND NOS. 2.12.1 AND 2.12.2 OF MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IT WAS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT VI DE ORDER DATED 31.1.2012 IN THE CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP, THE BE NCH HAS MAINTAINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE INSTANT ASSESSEE I.E. MITTAL GROUP FILED BY THE REV ENUE SHOULD ALSO BE MAINTAINED IN TOTO. 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND T HAT IN THE CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP VIDE ORDER DATED 31.1.2 012, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THE CASE OF LUNKAD GROUP, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE NAMES, AD DRESSES, ETC. OF SHARE APPLICANTS, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE B Y ASSESSING OFFICER IN THEIR HANDS WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT( A) AND -: 29: - 29 FINALLY BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 31.1.2012 WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE (MITTAL GROUP), TH E ADDITION WAS ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN AND NOT SHARE CAPI TAL AND WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY TRIBUNAL ON ITS OWN FACTS AS PER THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN PARA 19 & 20.. WE DO NOT FIN D ANY REASON TO APPLY THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN IN THE CASE OF LUNKA D GROUP TO THE ASSESSEE MITTAL GROUP, WHEREIN THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE G ROUND NOS. 2.12.1 AND 2.12.2 OF THE ASSESSEES MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATION. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 35. IN THE RESULT, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HER EINABOVE. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST MAY , 2012. (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED :1 ST MAY, 2012. CPU* 23.15