Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"A search was conducted in the case of Shri. Mukesh Sharma by the Bhopal unit of the department in July 2008 where in certain incriminating documents/loose slips relating Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd. were found and seized which are appearing on page no 22 to 25 of the Assessment Order. As a consequential action, a survey and search actions were conducted in the case of the assessee NCC Ltd. in January 2010, where again certain incriminating documents were found and seized. One such page is appearing on page 18 of the assessment order, legible copy of which was filed by the Ld.AR of the appellant while arguing his case before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

1. CIT vs. Excel Industries (358 ITR 295)

2. Radhaswamy Sansangh vs. CIT 193 ITR 321

3. PCIT vs. Gujarat Narmada Valley 422 ITR 164

4. Prasad Multi Services Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT 423 ITR 542

5. CIT vs. Escorts Ltd 338 ITR 485

35. In rebuttal, the learned DR submitted that the Tribunal in the case of NCC Mytas for the A.Y 2006-07 after elaborate examination of the facts had decided the issue against the assessee and our attention was drawn to Paras 9 to 17 of the said decision which is to the following effect:

38.1 The contention of the ld.DR is that the Tribunal in the case of NEC-NCC (supra), had decided the issue against the said assessee and therefore, the said decision is required to be followed by this Tribunal in the present case. In our view, the above said contention of the ld.DR is required to be rejected outright for the reasons mentioned hereinabove as the issue has been decided in ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd the case of the assessee by the Tribunal and against the said decision, the Revenue is in appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Once an issue has been decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case for the earlier years, and the facts remain the same, then in that case, the order of the Tribunal in assessee's own case has to be followed as against the decision of Tribunal in the case of some other assessees wherein the facts were totally different. After passing of the order by the Tribunal in case of the assessee, there is no decision of the jurisdictional High Court or of the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the assessee, whereas there are number of decisions in favour of the assessee on this issue by various High Courts and different Benches of the Tribunal.

38.3 Thirdly, the Tribunal while passing the decision in the case of NEC-NCC (supra) has not considered the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee rendered in ITA No.141/Hyd/2007 dt.27.08.2012 and ITA No.1023/Hyd/2010 dt.23.10.2013. Therefore, the decision of the Tribunal in the case of NEC-NCC (supra) cannot be said to be binding on this Tribunal more particularly when the case of the ITA Nos 73 to 75 and 77 to 80 of 2017 NCC Ltd assessee, the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal had already granted relief to the assessee. No change of facts or law has been brought to our notice by the ld.DR which command us to follow the subsequent decision passed by the Tribunal in the case of NEC-NCC (supra). In the light of the above, the ground and additional ground raised by the Revenue are dismissed.