9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 426X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is decided by the tax authorities and in fact, it is their prerogative to decide about the modalities - the Tribunal also did not find any infirmity in the decision reached by them - it is the responsibility of the assessee to disprove the view entertained by the assessing officer on the basis of materials gathered by him - the bank authorities can depose about the "apparent" only, whereas, the case of the revenue is that the apparent is not real - the revenue has substantiated their contentions with adequate materials - Thus, the evidences considered by the Tribunal cannot be considered as material and the true facts could have been ascertained by examining the bank manager If the error sought to be pointed out has to be established in a long drawn process of reasoning with number of arguments, then they cannot be considered as a mistake apparent from record – there was no merit in the petitions filed by the assessee – Decided against Assesssee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cuss about the same. At this juncture, we may mention that the Tribunal has rendered its decision by keeping in mind the established legal principles that the decision rendered by the non-jurisdictional High Courts have persuasive value and further what is binding is only the ratio of the decision. 3.2 According to Ld A.R, the failure of the Tribunal to discuss about the case laws relied upon by the assessee would render the order erroneous. We are unable to agree with the said view, as in our opinion, it is too general in nature. The assessees may place reliance on a number of case laws, both relevant and irrelevant. In that kind of situation, in our view, the Tribunal can be found fault with only if it failed to consider relevant case laws having direct or at least some remote nexus with the issue under consideration. The following observations made by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bright Automative and Plastics Ltd (supra) are very much relevant:- "Needless to observe, the Tribunal will decide the appeal after narrating the full relevant facts necessary for the disposal of two questions, legal issues governing the questions and then assign their reasoning wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the conclusions reached by the tax authorities by examining the facts surrounding the issue. After examining the facts, assessment orders and the order of Ld CIT(A), the Tribunal has expressed its view in detail in paragraphs 10 to 10.6 and also concluded that the case laws relied upon by the assessee are not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Thus, we may notice that the Tribunal has decided the issue by considering the facts of the case in a detailed manner, since the facts that prevailed in the instant case was peculiar and the issue was purely a question of fact. Hence, in our view, it cannot be said that the order of the Tribunal suffers from mistake on account of non-discussion of the case laws relied upon by the assessee and which were considered as not applicable by the Tribunal. It is not the case of the assessee that the case laws relied upon by him was not considered at all. Accordingly, in our view, the short fall, if any, in not discussing about the relevancy/irrelevancy of the case law cannot be made good u/s 254(2) of the Act. 4. The next mistake pointed out by the assessee in paragraph 6 of the petition is that the Tribunal has omitted to consider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal has specifically observed that the assessee has taken many grounds and accordingly listed out the issues that require adjudication. Thus, the grounds numbered as 3, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 were all related to the issues listed out in paragraph 6 of the order of the Tribunal and they have been duly considered while adjudicating the relevant issues. Hence, the assessee is not correct in stating that the Tribunal has omitted to adjudicate the grounds cited above. 7. In paragraph 12 of the petition, the assessee is again discussing about the violation of principles of natural justice, which has already been discussed in the preceding paragraphs. 8. In paragraph 13 to 15 of the petition, the assessee points out that the Tribunal has not addressed the plea of the assessee to summon the manager of Federal Bank in order to ascertain about the true owner of the impugned bank account. The assessee has also pointed out that Tribunal has not considered the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 125 ITR 713. We have already stated that the issue considered by the Tribunal was about the ownership of a bank account, i.e, the case of the revenue was that the apparent owner was not the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
