JUDGMENT

K.S. Jhaveri, J. - In both these appeals common question of law and facts are involved hence they are decided by this common judgment.

2. By way of these appeals, the appellant has assailed the judgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partly allowed the appeal of the department.

3. This court while admitting the appeals framed following substantial question of law:-

Appeal No.220/2017 admitted on 10.10.2017

"Whether in the facts in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the proceedings for reassessment under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer on non-existing facts because ultimately the Assessee has been able to explain that the income which was believed to have escaped assessment was explainable but some other additions were made under the assessment order?"

Appeal No.221/2017 admitted on 12.9.2017

"i) Whether in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. Tribunal was justified in holding that the proceedings for reassessment under Section 148/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer on nonexisting facts because ultimately the Assessee has been able to explain that the income which was beliefed to have escaped assessment was explainable but some other additions were made under the assessment order?

ii) Whether the ld. Tribunal was correct in law in not following the precedent of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Shri Ram Singh reported at 306 ITR 343 (Raj.) whereby the self same issue was been decided in favour of the assessee?

iii) Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITAT was correct in relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jet Airways (2010) 195 Taxmann 117 (Bom) when the Assessment Year involved in present case is that of 19992000 and 2000-01?

iv) Whether the ld. ITAT is justified and correct in law confirming an adhoc addition of Rs. 4,02,646/- in respect of unsecured loans without any basis whatsoever, only on account of detailed discussions in context of share subscription whereas the appellant had submitted a duly certified audit report which is an admissible evidence as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Additional Commissioner vs. Jai Engg. Works Ltd. 113 ITR 389 (1978) ?"

4. The facts are taken from ITA No.220/2017, the case of the assessee is that it has filed its return of income declaring loss of Rs. 56,82,440/- and the same was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently, the AO received information from DIT Investigation, Varanasi that the assessee's company has received bogus entries of Rs. 13,60,000/- on 16.12.1998 from M/s. Moon Holding & Credit Ltd., and Rs. 3,00,000/- on 15.3.1999 from Subh in Fin Caps Ltd., New Delhi respectively. On the basis of said information, the assessment proceedings were reopened under section 148 of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 19.3.2005. The reasons for reopening the assessment proceedings where shared with the assessee and after disposing off the assessee's objections, the reassessment order was passed under section 143(3) read with section 148 of the Act wherein certain additions were made to the returned income.

5. The Assessing Officer has decided against the present appellant and on appeal, the CIT (A) has reversed the finding of Assessing Officer and decided in favour of the assessee which has been reversed by the tribunal.

6. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Gunjan Pathak has taken us to the order of the tribunal wherein it has been held as under:-

3. The ld DR submitted two broad contentions before us. Firstly, he contended that the ld CIT(A) has clearly erred in holding that the Assessing officer has no jurisdiction on any other issues which come to his notice subseque