The Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Patiala v. M/S Mandi Alloys (P) Ltd

ITA No.126 of 2016 (O&M) 211-2IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH ITA No.126 of 2016 (O&M)Date of decision : 21.08.2018 The Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Patiala Versus M/s Mandi Alloys (P) Ltd. ... Appellant ... Respondent CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDALHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL Present:Mr. Zora Singh Klar, Advocatefor the appellant. Mr. Rishabh Kapoor, Advocatefor the respondent.for the respondent. **** RAJESH BINDAL, J. The appellant in the present appeal has challenged the orderdated 27.11.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DivisionBench, Chandigarh, arising out of Appeal No.222/CHD/2015 for theassessment year 2005-06, raising the following substantial questions oflaw:- “(i) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in upholding thedecision of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of`94,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplainedsubscription to share capital of the assessee company.”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in upholding thedecision of the Ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of`94,00,000/- made by the AO on account of unexplainedsubscription to share capital of the assessee company.” ii) “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the aboveHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the above ITA No.126 of 2016 (O&M) addition, failing to appreciate that cash was deposited inthe bank accounts of the companies subscribing to theshare capital and cheques were issued against the same?” iii) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additionby relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of M/s Stellar Investments Ltd. 251 ITR 263,failing to appreciate that the facts of the instant case aretotally different from that case?”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additionby relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Courtin the case of M/s Stellar Investments Ltd. 251 ITR 263,failing to appreciate that the facts of the instant case aretotally different from that case?” iv) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additionby relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in thecase of M/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 2016 CTR 195,failing to appreciate that the facts of the instant case aretotally different from that case?”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in deleting the additionby relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme in thecase of M/s Lovely Exports (P) Ltd., 2016 CTR 195,failing to appreciate that the facts of the instant case aretotally different from that case?” v) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not appreciating thatthe referred case laws pertain to Public Limitedcompanies, whereas the present case is that of closely heldPrivate Limited Company?”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not appreciating thatthe referred case laws pertain to Public Limitedcompanies, whereas the present case is that of closely heldPrivate Limited Company?” vi) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not following thejudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR369?”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not following thejudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR369?” ITA No.126 of 2016 (O&M) Yogesh Sharma2018.08.27 12:07I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document vi) “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, theHon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not following thejudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR369?”Hon'ble ITAT was correct in law in not following thejudgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case ofCIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease Pvt. Ltd., 342 ITR369?” ITA No.126 of 2016 (O&M) Yogesh Sharma2018.08.27 12:07I attest to the accuracy andintegrity of this document At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant did notdispute the fact that the amount involved in the present appeal is`34,39,695/-. As the amount involved is less than the limit prescribed inthe Circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 11.07.2018,the present appeal be dismissed as not maintainable. Ordered accordingly. However, it is made clear that dismissal of present appeal willnot be taken as upholding the order passed by the Tribunal as the legal issueraised therein is left open to be considered in an appropriate case. ( RAJESH BINDAL ) JUDGE 21.08.2018 Yogesh Sharma ( AMIT RAWAL ) JUDGE  Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/ NoYes/ No Whether Reportable