9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (11) TMI 14X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue carried the matter in appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA nos. 85/2013 and ITA 100/13, ITA 87/13. Vide judgement dt. 25.2.2013 the Hon'ble High Court had upheld the order of the I.T.A.T. The Assessing Officer followed his order for the earlier AYs and made additions to the income of the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authoirty applied the decision of the ITAT for the Assessment Year 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee on the issue of determination of residential status, as well as the other additions to income. Relief was granted and additions deleted. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also rejected certain grounds raised by the assesee. Aggrieved with the relief granted by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appelas) the Revenue has filed these appeals. The assessee also filed Cross Objections for the Assessment Year 2004-05 and 2005-06. 3. Both the parties submit that the facts of the case are same as the facts narrated by the ITAT while disposing off the appeals for the Assessment Years 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04. In fact it was submitted that the A.O. had us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... diran in India for the servicing of communication equipment used by Indian armed force. 4.5. Among the papers received from the Delhi Police were page nos. 58 & 59 of Annexure A-10 which allegedly detail the working of commission on arms contracts and the corresponding payments. Other papers include a note on Page wirh page nos. 60 & 61 as its attachments. The contents of page no. 58 & 59 and other pages are reproduced in the assessment order :- 4.6. AO was of the view that these documents were details of the commission payments related to contracts for Radio Sets of the Indian Defence establishment. According to Delhi Police. Dr. M.V. Rao did not furnish any explanation contending that he was not in a position to comment upon the documents due to his critical health condition. The contents and purported meaning of the page documented is reproduced by AO in his order. 4.7. Assessee denied any role or connection with these deals however Assessing Officer held him to be closely involved with the business of Tadiran in the Indian Defence establishment, as reflected by page no. 79 of Annexure A- 10, found and seized on 22.02.2007 from residence of Dr. M.V. Rao. 4.8. Based on the ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to India, which was deposited in bank accounts situated in tax haven countries like Jersey Islands etc. as stated in the documents. 4.13. On the basis of these observations and material found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee, said M/s Dr. M.V. Rao & Mohan Jagtap, the Assessing Officer drew following inferences:- 3.1 Before year 2003 assessee had small set up in India in the form of small companies namely M/s. Crown Corporation Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Dynatron Services Pvt. Ltd., M/s C-l India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Transcom Services India Pvt. Ltd. etc. These companies were mostly engaged in services and spares of defence armaments. Mr. Nanda being a former Navy Man specializes in contracts for services and spares for equipment used by the Indian Navy. 3.2 In year 2003 he started investing heavily in hotel properties and lands in Delhi NCR and Mumbai. His first acquisition in India was the prestigious Hotel Claridges situated in Lutyens Delhi. After acquiring the Claridges he went on to extensively renovate the property and converted it into a boutique five star hotel. Along with this deal he also took management control of Claridges Nabha Palace, Mussorie. In y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning in clandestine manner. These services were rendered in India by the assessee. The resultant commission income arising from these were received abroad. AO alleged that this income has been brought into India in form of F.D.I, and external commercial borrowings and by floating various entities abroad. Thus, all these incorporated foreign entities and their Indian investments were held to be assessee's front organizations. 4.18. It was held that Dr. M.V. Rao is a close associate of assessee, who operated from the office building of the companies of Nanda group at D-5. Defence Colony, New Delhi. Dr. M.V. Rao was a Director in C1 India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Transcom Services Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, these companies were held to be benami entities including C 1 India Pvt. Ltd. It was thus held that assessee holds large stake through Mauritius based entity Y2K Systems International Ltd. The main investor in Transcom India Pvt. Ltd. was one Inet Communications Pvt. Ltd., which is controlled by one Sh. Bipin B.Shah. He was also a close associate of Sh. Suresh Nanda and was a Director in almost all the major companies of the group. In fine it was held that assessee owned and controlled these B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vt. Ltd. was treated as unexplained investment of the assessee and added to his taxable income. Thus Assessing Officer held thati) Assessee was engaged in the business of arms dealings along with Dr. M.V. Rao & Mohan Jagtap. ii) Y2K was benami company of the assessee. iii) Capital introduced by Y2K in C-l India was assessee's money. 4.25. Assessing Officer also proposed to assessee to show cause, as to why he should not be treated as 'Resident' assessee instead of 'Non-Resident' as held earlier and taxed accordingly in India. The passport entries about assessee's stay over a period in India were found to be as under- A.Y. No. of days in India as computed by the assessee Actual No. of days 2001-02 154 172 2002-03 138 150 2003-04 158 176 2004-05 159 177 2005-06 155 171 2006-07 158 176 4.26. AO has not disputed the days of stay given in above chart. However according to him for determining the status of residence, clause (c) of Sec. 6 was applicable to assessee and not clause (b) of the I. T. Act, by which he was to be treated as Resident in India for these years. 4.27. Assessee objected to this proposition and filed a deta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o days in India in the year previous to the year when he became a non-resident. Thus, in calculating the four years previous to the assessment year within the meaning of clause (c) in the case of an Indian citizen going abroad would include the year or years when he was a resident during which he might have stayed all three hundred and sixty five days in one year in India. In order to set off this disadvantage and mitigate the hardships the legislature has provided in clause (a) the Explanation to section 6(1) that where an Indian citizen goes for employment in any previous year the rigor of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 6 is diluted to some extent by providing a relaxation for the year the assessee left for employment outside India, namely he will be treated as 'Non- Resident" if he is in India for less than 182 days in that year. 4.31. Similarly, a citizen of India/person of Indian origin who visits India in the assessment year succeeding the year in which he became a non-resident in calculating the four years previous to the year of departure from India within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 6 would include the year or years when he was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned, which was not permissible in law. Reliance was placed on the judgment in the case of Hardev Motor Transport v. State of M.P., (2006) 8 see 613(626): "31. The role of an Explanation of a statute is well known. By inserting an Explanation in the Schedule of the Act, the main provisions of the Act cannot be defeated By reason of an Explanation, even otherwise, the scope and effect of a provision cannot be enlarged It was so held in S. Sundaram Pillai v. VR. Pattabiraman in the following terms: 4.34. The AO, however, held that assessee was to be treated as Resident and not as Non-resident in these years on following observations: (a) The Explanation (b) to section 6(l)(c) relaxes the 60 days stay in India to 182 days if the individual is an Indian citizen or a person of Indian origin and if he being outside India visits India during that year. According to the AO, the assessee, though not citizen, for all practical purposes was resident i.e. living within India who goes abroad on visits. In other words he was not outside India and came on visit to India. Therefore, he was not eligible for relaxation provided by Explanation (b) as he was not a person who being outside India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts made by assessee in M/s Claridges SEZ P.Ltd. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,32,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained deposits with Deutsche bank, Singapore. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 23,90,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of payment made to assessee's wife Smt.Renu Nanda out of undisclosed sources. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding the assessee to be a Non-resident for the year under consideration without appreciating the fact that explanation (b) of Section 6(1)(c ) was not application to assessee. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal." We first take up ground no.7 on the issue of residential status of the assesee. The Ld. DR submitted that the finding of the Hon'ble High Court are not binding as the Revenue appeals were dismissed on the groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person. 2.2 Words 'on a visit' as contained in clause (b) of the Explanation go to show that if in a year the assessee pays multiple visits to India he cannot take benefit of the provisions of this clause. Legislature deliberately restricted the application to a single visit stay in India because otherwise it would have lead to evasion of tax statutes as is done by the assessee. 2.3 Tribunal's earlier order relied by CIT(A) does not deal with the argument that the interpretation advocated by the Respondent assessee will render the Explanation qua the Indian citizen or qua the people of Indian origin as redundant. Further, Respondent's interpretation expands the scope of Sec. 6(1) which is not permissible at all. 2.4 While adjudicating the issue the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that after all the income earned by the assessee has to be brought to tax in some tax jurisdiction even if not taxable in the Indian tax jurisdiction. Had this attempt been made by the CIT(A) he would have been able to appreciate the tax evasion centric planning. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that if the assessee was not the resident of India or income was really accruing or arising abroad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to 365 days or more. But, in the case of citizens of India, the length of stay in India in a particular year has been extended to 182 days as compared to 60 days for foreigners. This period of 182 days was earlier 150 days and by virtue of the Finance Act 1994, with effect from 01.04.1995 the word 'fifty' has been substituted by 'eighty-two'. In other words, instead of 150 days stay in India, the period of stay required is 182 days for an individual to be covered under section 6(l)(c) read with explanation (b), in case he is an Indian citizen or a person of Indian origin. 12. In the present case, although, the respondent/assessee has, in the preceding 4 years been in India for a period in excess of 365 days in India, in none of years has he been in India for a period in excess of 182 days. Therefore, the Tribunal is absolutely right in concluding that the respondent/assessee was not a resident of India. This is a pure question of fact based on a plain reading of the provisions of section 6. All that has to be seen is the number of days that the respondent/assessee has spent in India in the year in question as also in the preceding 4 years. No substantial question o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lved in facilitating defence deals in any manner;(b) there is no iota of evidence found by the revenue or any other agency that Shri Suresh Nanda received any commission or any income from such transactions; (c) that no document was seized from the premises of Mr.Suresh Nanda and that he has nothing to do with any of the seized documents found in the premises of Dr.M.V.Rao; (d) A perusal of the seized documents and the statements of Dr.M.V.Rao or Mr. Jagtap demonstrated that they here not even a remote connection whatsoever with the assessee. 4.5. The Ld.Counsel further contended that the Tribunal in the assessee's own case, on the very same set of facts had adjudicated the matter in a particular manner, and that the same has to be followed by the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal. 5. After hearing rival contentions on the issue of following the order of the Coordinate Bench in the assessee's own case on the very same set of facts, we rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshoram & Co. vs. UOI (1989) 3 SCC 151 wherein, at page 160 it is held as follows: "The binding effect of a decision of this Court does not depend on whether particular arguments are consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed that he was closely involved in the business of M/s Taridan communication Ltd. Th The Assessing Officer at para 5.7 and para 5.8 held as follows: "5.7 Based on the above mentioned documents, the following conclusions are in order: a) Sh. Suresh Nanda is actively involved in facilitating defence deals for foreign companies in India. Tadiran is one of his clients. b) The four contracts mentioned in the page no.58 and 59 of Annexure A-10 are contracts with Indian Defence establishment given to Tadiran of Israel. c) The foot note on page 59 mentions that pages 58 and 59 are reconciliation statement. Page 60 and 61 confirm the receipt of the amount mentioned in page 58 and 59. Thus, the commission income has been actually received in the hands of Sh. Suresh Nanda and his Group. 5.8 It can be safely concluded that Sh. Suresh Nanda has been working for Tadiran and other overseas suppliers to push through their contracts in India." The Assessing Officer also examined the papers seized from one Mr. Mohan S. Jagtap, an employee of M/s Crown corporation Ltd. Mr. Mohan S. Jagtap was an interpreter. On examination of these documents the assessee came to a conclusion that Shri Mohan S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... commissions; (iv) whether the appellant was the sole beneficiary or there were other beneficiaries; (v) what extent, cannot be ascertained on the basis of available documents and are, therefore, a matter of further investigation and verification." "The Hon'ble ITAT, vide para 11 of its common order dt. 24.7.2012 in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda (ITA nos. 1428, 1429 & 1430/Del/2012 for AYs 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04, regarding the same additions also made in the hands of Shri Suresh Nanda, held that "interest of justice will be served if the issues about income from commission/business of dealings in arms are decided afresh by Assessing Officer". Since the directions of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda relate to the same additions of income as in the case of the appellant, the said direction will also be applicable in the case of this appellant". "In my considered view, the truth of the matter cannot be ascertained without making a reference to the Govt. of Israel through the competent authority, FT & TR division of the CBDT, on the issues raised in para 5.9 of this order, which are the same as, and in compliance to, the order of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come other than that returned by him accrued or arose or was received outside India. The burden is, therefore, squarely on the department to establish from facts available on record that the income was received in India. (ii) The above addition was made on the basis of documents seized from the residence of one Dr. M. V. Rao. The documents purportedly related to AY 2002- 03 to 2006-07. . The Hon'ble ITAT vide their order dated 24.07.2012 adjudicated the said issue and set aside the same to the AO for the following directions. (Kindly Refer 47 of PB) "Apropos common ground raised in A.Ys. 2002-03 & 2003-04 in respect of alleged income from arms deals made on account of searches in the case of M.V. Rao and Mohan Sambha Ji Jagtap, the relevant statements have neither been provided nor these persons have been allowed to be cross examined by assessee. In the presence of these infirmities in the proceedings, these additions cannot be made. The AO may be directed to do the needful in this behalf; consider the outcome of assessment proceeding in their cases provide the opportunity for the cross examination and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law. We are of the view that the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said papers do not mention any name much less that of the assessee and therefore to whom these papers belong cannot be stated. (c) Merely because some dates and payment particulars have been mentioned without any name of persons to whom they have allegedly been made, it cannot be held that the payments have been made to the assessee. (d) The handwriting on these two documents is not of the assessee or anybody known to him (e) No documentary evidence relating to these documents was found in the possession of the assessee or his family members to even remotely suggest that any such payment was received by the assessee. (f) There is no bank account etc of the assessee to show that any of these payments were made to him. (g) No person including Dr. M.V. Rao has stated that these payments were ever made to the assessee. (h) One fails to understand how a paper found from a third party mentioning some amounts, without mentioning the name of the person who has made these payments or the persons to whom the payments have been made, can be said to be referring to the assessee. As far as the assessee is concerned, he reiterates that he has nothing to do with the said papers and theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s paper? All these issues should have been posed to Dr. M.V. Rao before seeking any response of the assessee in the matter. (d) The assessee cannot stop anybody from writing his name. Mere writing of a name without any corroborative evidence means nothing and is not even worth the paper it is written on. (e) The title of the paper itself is not clear. Was this a presentation material addressed to Tadiran or was it being conceived to be addressed to Tadiran? Who was giving the presentation material and to whom? When was this presentation material given and has any person named in the said material been examined. Has anybody named in the document claimed to having even known the assessee? (f) This document nowhere says that any commission has been paid to the assessee and the services that he has rendered in respect of any business transaction. (g) In fact, the assessee does not know any of the person named in the presentation material and firmly denies having anything to do with the narrative in the said material. (h) The assessee also wonders why this paper was never shown to him during the course of assessment proceedings. Could it have been doctored or placed by somebody? Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng their owner. He did talk about his connection with one Mr. Pulel Fleishman and M/s Tadiran Communication Ltd but categorically refused having anything to do with the documents allegedly found from his premises. (ii) We would like to pause here and respectfully submit that if the alleged owner of the documents has himself denied having ever seen them or having anything to do with them, how can the said documents be said to be belonging to the appellant. The documents indubitably do not belong to the appellant as they were not found on him and even otherwise do not bear his name or signatures to signify any form of ownership. (iii) The Department has not been able to establish the ownership of the documents vis-à-vis Dr. M.V. Rao who did not even admit that the documents were found from his premises. In such a situation one fails to understand how the documents can be said to be belonging/related to the appellant. Hence, the Hon'ble Tribunal's direction that the presumption in law that the person from whom the document is found is the owner of the document and the burden is on the Department to prove that is also not discharged. (iv) For ease of reference the relevan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ership of the said company exists. (iv) It has been alleged that the share holder of the company is one M/s Inet Communication, Mumbai. The assessee has nothing to do with M/s Inet Communication and the company, admittedly as per the order, is owned and run by one Mr. Bipin B. Shah. (v) Mr. Bipin B. Shah is a professional with an independent and roaring practice and there can be no doubt that he could be running certain companies while carrying on with his profession. To the best of the knowledge and belief of the assessee, no where Mr. Bipin Shah stated that he was holding shares on behalf of the assessee and that M/s Transcom Services Pvt. Ltd belongs to the assessee. (vi) The assessee fails to understand how merely on conjectures and surmises and on some allegations before the search can the statement be made that M/s Transcom Services Pvt. Ltd belong to him. (vii) It is trite that every company is the separate legal entity and merely on allegations it cannot be held that it belongs to persons other than the share holders. (viii) There is no finding of the Assessing Officer or any other authority that the company is benami of the assessee or belongs to him. There is nothing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o evidence to show that the alleged transaction ever took place. Hence, it is nothing but a figment of imagination of the department and the addition deserves to be deleted." 6.3. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the addition in question cannot be sustained for the following reasons. The A.O. has arrived at the conclusions based on examination of certain documents found during the course of search. Statements of Shri M. V. Rao and Mr. Mohan Jagtap were referred to the assessee, on being given copies of these documents, given his contentions, The Ld. Departmental Representative relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, documents found were analysed and inferences were drawn and relied on the evidences during the arguments. We adjudicate the issue on hand by examining the document in question, after considering the findings of the Assessing Officer and the contention of the D.R. and the contentions of the assessee. As the A.O. has already given his findings on the document, in our view no useful purpose would be served by restoring the matter once again to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication. 6.4. From a perusal of the documents seized from the premises of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his paper. No names are mentioned. Hence for the same reasons given, in the case of other such evidences, we are of the view that no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee based on these papers. (c) Annexure A-11 page 62 is a letter which does not make any reference to the assessee. There is no evidence to connect this paper with that of the assessee. (d) Annexure A-10 at page 79 is a paper titled "presentation material conceived as being addressed to Tadiran". This does not prove that the assessee has received or earned any commission income from defence deal. 6.5. For the same reasons given in paragraph no............above, we are of the considered opinion that no addition can be made based on this document. Dr.MV Rao has not been questioned on these documents. The document does not indicate that services have been rendered by the assessee or that any commission was received. Thus, no addition can be made based on this document. 6.6. In the statement given by Dr.MV Rao, no mention or a reference was made to the assessee Mr.Suresh Nanda, much less any suggestion being made that Mr. Suresh Nanda was involved in defence deals or that he had earned any commission. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also held as a circumstance to show that the assessee is having control over the company. The Assessing Officer examined page no.70 of annexure A-15, which is a document found and seized from the residence of Mr. Suresh Nanda, Which details the debit and credit entries in the account in Deutsche Bank Singapore and came to a conclusion that the entries therein are income of the assessee. At para 9.4 page 34 the Assessing Officer has examined the following documents: a) Annexure A-8 page 17 to 34 party R-1. b) Annexure A-8 page 35 party R-1. c) Annexure A-8 page 36 party R-1 After giving a factual narration as what is given in each of these documents , the Assessing Officer came to a conclusion that Mr. Suresh Nanda is owner of UBS Ltd. Mauritius, as well as UPS Trading ,FZC, UAE. For the sake of brevity we do not extract the conclusion arrived in the order, as narrated by the Assessing Officer at para 9.5. The Assessing Officer refers, enquiry sent to the Govt. of Maurititius through the FT & TR division of the CBDT, and has received a reply and came to a conclusion that Mr. Suresh Nanda, has used the Mauritius route, to bring the unaccounted money into the Indian companies to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITAT vide para 8.3 of its order dt. 24.7.2012. It ahs been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI vs. Kamlakshi Finance Corp.Ltd. (AIR 1992 SC 711) and Khalid Automobiles vs. UOI (4 SCC (Suppl.) 653) that the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and the Tribunal are binding on the income tax authorities without any reservation. Accordingly, the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT is applied to the present Assessment Year, supersedes the earlier decision of CIT(A) on this ground, the earlier order of CIT(A) merges with the subsequent order of ITAT, which ahs become binding on the appellate authority. Consequently, this ground of appeal is allowed. Appellant gets relief of Rs. 104,68,35,904/-. 7.3. It is noted that the impugned amounts have not been brought to tax in the hands of the beneficiary companies, namely M/s Shantideep Foods (P) Ltd., M/s Shantideep Hotels (P) Ltd. and M/s Pradigm Hotels (P) Ltd. It is also noted that so far there is no evidence to establish that the amounts invested are income of the appellant that has arisen in India. It is seen from para 10.6 (page 4) of the assessment order that certain information, such as bank statements of the Mauritius based compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA 1428,1429,1430/Del/12 yet deleted the addition solely relying on the ITAT order dt. 24.7.2012 and also observing that even if amount belongs to assessee still it cannot be taxed as his status is Non-resident, but since bank statement from Mauritius was pending holding the addition to be premature has directed Assessing Officer to pursue qua investigation to ascertain truth. (2.1) When this issue was not there before the Tribunal it was incorrect on the part of the CIT(A) to instead of dealing with various arguments given by the Assessing Officer while making addition, seek any cover of the Tribunal order. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that if the money did not belong to the assessee why was the land purchased in the names of the assessee and his son Sanjeev Nanda. (2.2) The AR of the assessee has argued that the order of the CIT(A) to the extent of restoring the issue to Assessing Officer is not as per the law because power of restoring the issue back to Assessing Officer is not vested any more with him and hence wants expunction of these directions. In this connection, it is to be noted that the CIT(A) has not set aside the issue to be decided de-novo (which alone is ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entity and is not a front company of the appellant. a. Incorporation certificate and Memorandum and Articles of UBS Ltd., Mauritius The incorporation certificate along with the Memorandum and Articles of Association were filed before the learned A.O. at the time of assessment by Claridges Hotels P Ltd b. Tax residency certificate It was also submitted that UBS Ltd. is a tax resident of Mauritius and in support the tax residency certificate of the company was also furnished by Claridges Hotels P Ltd c. Shareholding of UBS Ltd., Mauritius also filed The appellant though not required in law, has gone to the extent of showing the share holders of UBS Ltd. and even the share holder of the share holders i.e. the ultimate beneficiary. As regards the share holding in UBS Ltd., it was submitted that there are three share holders in UBS Ltd., namely, Paranal Finance S.A. Mideast Consortium S.A. and Infotec Services Ltd. These three share-holders owned 60%, 20% and 20% share respectively in UBS Ltd. (d) Confirmation by Shareholders of UBS Ltd Mauritius The appellant's contention is that he is share holder in Infotec Services Ltd. which has a 20% stake in UBS Ltd. It was further subm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the confirmation from the owner of the two shareholding companies is also conclusive proof of ownership by Mr. Hamilton Andrews and the said fact has remains un-rebutted till date. (b) Annexure No. A-8, page-35 Party R-1 This document also conclusively establishes the fact that the appellant have a stake in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius only through holding majority shares in M/s Infotec Services Ltd, Jersey, Channel Island. The appellant was a resident of UAE Dubai during the entire block period. During this period, appellant had majority stake in a company called M/s UBS Trading FZC, Sharjah. UBS Trading FZC was engaged in sale and purchase of commodities and was being managed professionally in Sharjah. The books of accounts of this company were duly audited and the audited balance sheets for the year ending 31st December 2004 and 31st December, 2005 are available elsewhere in the documents seized by the Department during the course of search u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As is evident from the letter referred to by your goodself, there was a second round of financing requirement in Universal Business Solution Ltd ,Mauritius and Infotec Services Ltd holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tius as a term loan. The AO had mentioned that the name of the signatories on the draft included Mr. Suresh Nanda, Director, M/s Infotec Services Services Ltd. This establishes the fact that the appellant's stake in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius is only through M/s Infotec Services Services Ltd, as submitted elsewhere in this reply. (f) Annexure A-8 Page-13 The AO's interpretation of this document is absolutely correct. The document shows that there are three shareholders of Universal Business Solutions Limited who have, besides contributing to share capital also given loans to the said company. The AO has further stated that under the column I the phrase 'Ex UBS Sharjah' has been mentioned. This clearly means that ISL had contributed the said amount to Universal Business Solutions Mauritius by receiving remittances from UBS Sharjah. The AO has further observed that at page 38 Annexure A-8 party A-1 it is written that the investment in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius by ISL is for and on behalf of Mr. Suresh Nanda. This observation is absolutely correct. As already submitted ISL is a 20% shareholder in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius and the appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed upon by the AO, it is abundantly clear that Paranal Finance and Mid East Consortium are owned by Mr. Hamilton Andrews as these companies together owned about 80% shares in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius. It is also clear that M/s Infotec Services Ltd, a company in which the appellant own majority stake, owns only 20% shares in Universal Business Solutions Mauritius. Therefore, the AO's contention that the appellant own Universal Business Solutions Mauritius is grossly incorrect as is evident from the documents relied upon by the AO himself. The department south information from Mauritius regarding UBS Ltd. Mauritius and the Mauritius authorities confirmed that the documents addressed to UBS Mauritius and not Mr. Suresh Nanda and that loans etc. taken by them are from the shareholders. The analysis of the balance sheet of UBS Mauritius. Regarding enquiry sent to Government of Mauritius through FT & TR are as follows : 4. Information sought from Government of Mauritius through FT & TR division of CBDT. The reply of the Government of Mauritius as reproduced in Para 10.6 Page-41 of the assessment completely supports the contention of the appellant. As per clause (i) th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that though not strictly required in law the appellant has taken pains to even establish the identity of shareholder of Paranal Finance S.A. and Mideast Consortium S.A.and Infotec Services Ltd. (b) On perusal of Balance Sheet of UBS Ltd, which the AO has produced in his assessment order, it may further be seen that the investment made in its subsidiary i.e. M/s Shantideep Food P Ltd. has also been clearly reflected as assets. The Balance Sheet of UBS Ltd., Mauritius completely corroborates the appellant's contentions as regards the UBS Ltd. and its share holders in terms of the ownership of the share holding companies. 6. Statement given by the Appellant during search: At Para 9.3, the Assessing Officer has reproduced reply to Question No. 10 rerecorded by DDIT Investigation, New Delhi on 8.3.2007. At the very inception, it is respectfully submitted that the copy of the statement recorded on 8.3.2007 has still not been furnished despite request being made. It is trite that no statement can be used against the appellant unless the same is confronted to him. Even on perusal of the reply given by the Appellant, it is found that the Appellant has stated that his inte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de in the hands of the appellant, 9. In view of the assessee being a non-resident, there is evidence of dividend having been received by him outside India from a company incorporated outside India which is the source of investment in UBS Mauritius to the extent of 20%. Hence that income cannot be subjected to tax. There is also finding of fact that the remaining 80% of the shareholding belong to Mr. Hamilton Andrews and the same has been confirmed by him. 10. Legal submissions: (i) Whoever alleges a fraud has to prove it (a) It may be submitted that the A.O. is trying to state that the equity structure of UBS Ltd. is a sham and that its Mr. Suresh Nanda is the real owner. It is settled law that whoever alleges fraud had to establish the same. Hence burden of proving this allegation squarely vests with the department. The assessee has been able to clearly show that UBS Ltd., Mauritius is an independent entity having three share holders, the person behind two share holders is Mr. Hamilton Andrews holding shares in the company to the extent of 80% and Mr. Suresh Nanda to the extent of 20%. This equity structure comes out from the documents seized and described earlier and the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents seized during the course of search. Confirmation from the major shareholder of two out of the three companies of M/s UBS Ltd, Mauritius has been filed during the course of assessment. Appellant has himself admitted that he is the major shareholder of the third corporate entity i.e. Infotec Services Ltd which owns 20% share capital of UBS Ltd. Needless to add that Balance Sheet of UBS Ltd. and its share holders constitution has been filed before the A.O. during the proceedings relating to Claridges Hotels Pvt.Ltd. The source of funds of Infotech Services Ltd. who is 20% share holder of UBS Ltd. has also been established in as much as the same has come by way of dividend from UBS FZC., Sharjah. Similarly, the owner of Paranal Finance Ltd., and Mid East online, Mr. Hamilton Andrews has given an attested confirmation that he owns the said companies and also that these companies own 80% shares in UBS Ltd., Mauritius. It is further submitted that when the line of ownership is so clear then under no stretch of imagination can the appellant Mr.Suresh Nanda be held to be the owner of M/s Shantideep Hotels P Ltd, M/s Shantideep foods P Ltd and M/s Paradigm Hotels P Ltd. The Department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has also got investments of a friend, Mr. Hamilton Andrews who is a British citizen. The mere fact that the appellant is on the board of directors does not mean that he owns the Claridges Hotel Pvt.Ltd. It is pertinent to mention that the Claridges Hotel is being managed by General Manager who is a professional and is a foreigner. e) Further reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 wherein at page 359 it has been held that:- "A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fact that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be false, it would be a remote and far-fetched conclusion to hold that the money belongs to B. There would be in such a case no direct nexus between the facts found and the conclusion drawn therefrom." It may be appreciated that UBS Ltd., Mauritius has given complete evidence of its ownership of Claridges Hotel Pvt.Ltd. and without prejudice even if it is for any reason held that UBS Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onus under Section 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. The Revenue, on its part, did not summon the creditor under Section 131 of the Act. It took no steps to verify the statement of the assessee. Thus, after the assessee filed the confirmatory letter with the correct name and address of the creditor and the GIR number as well, the onus immediately shifted on the Department which was not discharged by the Department in this case. The deletion of the addition of Rs. 41,500 and allowance of interest on it by the Tribunal was, therefore, proper. Per Sushil Kumar Jha: Where an assessee gives the correct name, address and GIR number of the creditor, he has discharged his onus to prove the genuineness of credits in his accounts and unless a notice in due form under Section 131 of the Act is issued by the Revenue authority to test the genuineness of the transaction or the capacity of the creditor to pay, the amounts cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee." The ratio of the judgement applies to appellant as well. Additionally in the case of appellant on an enquiry made to Mauritius authorities, it was confirmed that it is Universal Business Solutiions Ltd. Mauritius which has made the inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved and such persons own such credits with the assessee still the assessee is to further prove the source from which the creditors could have acquired money to be deposited with him. The fact that the depositors' explanation about the sources where from they acquired the money is not acceptable to the A.O., it cannot be presumed that the deposits made by such creditors is the money of the assessee himself. There is no warrant for such presumption. In such event, if the creditors' explanation is found to be not acceptable about such deposits, the investment owned by such persons may be subjected to the proceedings for inclusion of such investment as their income from undisclosed sources or if they have been found benami, the real owner can be brought to the tax net. But in order to fasten liability on the assessee by including such credits as his income from unexplained sources a nexus has to be established that he sources of creditors deposit flew from the assessee. In the absence of any such link, additions of cash credits found at the books of account of the assessee cannot be considered to be unexplained income of the assessee, where existence of depositors of such credits is es ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- "I have no interest in terms of share holding or ownership in Claridges SEZ (P) Ltd. Claridges SEZ (P) Ltd is owned by Palm Technologies Ltd which is a foreign company incorporated in Mauritius. As far as I am aware, Palm Technologies is owned by an UK citizen Mr. E.A. Hoffland who is a friend and was introduced to me by Mr Hamilton Andrews. Mr. Hoffland was interested in setting up a technology company. When he found the going difficult as a technology company the objects of the company were changed to establishing an SEZ in India and for that purpose, remitted money for acquisition of land. He sought my assistance in introducing him to certain professionals and experts who could help in executing the transactions on behalf of the company. At one stage, I was contemplating on taking a stake in the company as Mr.Hoffland was finding it difficult to manage the land acquisition etc in India. Even otherwise, I felt that there was a good investment potential in the SEZ project and I at one stage advanced a sum of Rs. 3,25,00,000 as share application money in Claridges SEZ (P) Ltd. However, because of unfortunate turn of events that developed after the search that took place on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action relating to the infusion of funds by Palm Technologies into its wholly owned subsidiary M/s Claridges SEZ. The judgements and legal position on benami etc., cited in the case of addition relating to Claridges Hotels P Ltd would apply to the impugned addition as well. It is further submitted that there is not an iota of evidence to effect that the individual appellant is a shareholder in M/s Palm technologies, or a contributory to funds in the said company. Hence the mere allegation of the department that the appellant is de facto M/s Palm Technologies is bereft of any basis or reason. It is trite that the onus is on the person who alleges benami. The department, except for bald allegations has not been able to tender any proof or evidence of the appellant's money being routed through Palm Technologies. Hence the addition so made deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to the aforesaid it is submitted that the appellant has made a substantive addition of the same amount in the hands of the Indian company Claridges SEZ Private Limited which received the amount from its shareholder M/s Palm Technologies. Such additionson two hands on substantive basis is untenable in law. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te this addition, this ground of the assessee is allowed and the addition of Rs. 10,51,20,000/- is deleted." 7.4.2. Applying the propositions laid down by the Hon'ble High Court we uphold the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) we hold that the addition in question is bad in law, the order of the Tribunal is also in favour of the assessee. As in the earlier issue of additions made on alleged commission income, here also the Assessing Officer made additions based on certain documents. The assessee has made detailed contentions on these documents. We examine these documents and the contentions of both the parties. 7.4.3. As it is held that the assessee is a Non-Resident Indian, the burden to prove that a particular income has either accrued or received in India is on the Revenue, if it chooses to bring to tax a particular receipt as income. In cases where exemptions or deductions are claimed from taxable income, then the burden of proof is on the assessee. 7.4.4. In this case M/s Clardges Hotels P.Ltd. received money from its Holding Co. M/s UBS of Mauritius. This is not a case where the assessee received any money. M/s UBS, Mauritius is not a company controlled b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h M/s Mid East, S.A. (v) Annexure A 8 page 38, 39 to 71 support the contentions of the assessee that Info Services Ltd. provide funds to UBS Ltd., Mauritius. (vi) Annexure A 8 page 13 also corroborates the claim of the assessee regarding funding of M/s UBS, Mauritius. There is no controvery on the interpretation of this ;document between the Assessing Officer and the assessee. Similar is the interpretation of annexure A 8 pages 70 to 75. (vii) Annexure A 22 pages 67 to 70 does not demonstrate that the assessee has acquired or that the assessee had invested further in M/s Paramel Finance. Merely because the financial statements including balance sheet of Paramel Finance is sent to the assessee, it does not follow that the assessee had purchased those company that too without any further evidence. (viii) Similarly Annexure A 26 pages 11 to 13 only corroborate the version of the assessee that he invested in UBS, Maurities through Infortech Services Ltd. and that the stale is only 20% and that 80% shares of UBS, Mauritius is owned by Mr.Hamitton and Ruse through M/s Paramal Finance and Mites Company. In our view the statement given by the assessee to the DIT Investigation, New Del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owed in and out of money in assessee's a/c with Deutsche bank, Singapore to his NRE a/c with Deutsche Bank, New Delhi, which document was called by the assessee as having mere rough scribbling, made addition because assessee did not give details of his business abroad. CIT(A) instead of dealing with various contentions put forth by the Assessing Officer in his order, as seen ;from his order (e.g. para 5.2 of his order for Assessment Year 2004-05), instead of dealing with various contentions/points of the Assessing Officer, deleted the addition solely relying on the ITAT order dt. 24.7.2012. 2. CIT(A) ought to have taken note of the finding recorded by the Assessing Officer that despite being asked the assessee has (question no.31), to hide the truth, disowned the document calling to be containing mere scribbling and that (except asserting that the bank account had been subjected to scrutiny) he did not provide bank a/c to the Assessing Officer which ought to have been done especially when the Assessing Officer had every right to examine the issue from the angle of status being Resident. The CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the bank a/c contained the proceeds of illegal commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nued to support her financially. At para 9.2 the Assessing Officer lists out the payments made from Deutsche bank, Singapore, to his wife. The Assessing Officer at para 9.6 and 9.7 held as follows. "9.6. Based on the above, it is evident that the assessee is not giving any fixed amount to his wife through banking channels. A minimum conservative estimate of the amount paid by the assessee as support to his wife would be based on the agreement dated 11th September,2004. The details are worked out as below:- (i) Fixed payments = Rs. 1,00,000 pm x 12m + Rs. 2,00,000 for Diwali = Rs. 14,00,000/- (ii) Payments to 1 guards, 4 servants, 2 drivers, 1 mali and Rs. 10,000/- to one Alok is estimated at Rs. 1,00,000 pm and thus the Total annual payment on this account would be Rs. 1,00,000x12=Rs.12,00,000/- (iii) Phone bills, maintenance of house, furniture and fixture, car expenses And maintenance, overseas and domestic airlines tickets are estimated to Rs. 50,000 pm. Thus the annual payment would be Rs. 6,00,000/-. (iv) Total amount = Rs. 32,00,000/-. 9.7. It is to be noted that this amount broadly matches with the figure of Rs. 31,00,000/- that is agreed as the payment to be made by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erit in the argument of the Ld.Counsel that with estranged relations on record such presumption is baseless". 2. Additions are not presumptions made but are made on the basis of specific evidences found in search which have not been virtually considered by the CIT(A)/ITAT. When the additions are referable to the evidences found in the search action it is absolutely incorrect to say that additions were based on presumptions and hence either the order of the Assessing Officer be restored or alternatively the matter be set aside to CIT(A) for dealing with the specific charges/reasons/contentions of the Assessing Officer." 9.3. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee argued that the issues are covered through the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide order dt. 25.2.2013. He further submitted that the Tribunal, on appreciation of facts had decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the earlier AYs. He submitted as follows. "6. Ground No.6 .regarding Addition of Rs. 23,90,000/- - payment to assessee's wife Renu Nanda: This issue is also covered by the Delhi High Court order dated 25.02.2013 for AY 2001- 02to 2003-04. (Kindly refer PB Page 47-48) The addition with regard to the paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nual maintenance to his wife in the year 1997-98 and therefore, why would he not pay more at least the same amount 10 years later. (b) The estimation of the payment that would have been made to his wife is to be based on the agreement dated 11.09.2004 wherein Mrs. Nanda was to be paid Rs. 1 lacs per month and Rs. 2 lacs for diwali. It is respectfully submitted that the addition made is illegal and deserves to be set aside for the following reasons:- (i) That during the course of search on 28.02.2007, no evidence whatsoever was found to even remotely suggest that any payment other than Rs. 8,10,000/- by cheque was made to Mrs. Renu Nanda by the appellant. (ii) The appellant has paid Rs. 8,10,000/- by cheque for her day to day expenses which is more than enough considering that Mrs. Renu Nanda is alone in the house provided by the appellant and all the other fixed expenses are made by the appellant. (iii) No examination of the appellant or Mrs. Renu Nanda was made to arrive at the estimation. (iv) The estimation is based on the agreement dated 11.09.2004 which is one year past F.Y. 2003-04. How can an agreement which is valid after 11.09.2004 apply to the period 2003-04? (v) T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed in A.Y. 2003-04 is deleted." Similar basis has been adopted by the AO while making the addition on the issue in AY 2004-05. In view of the facts and the decision of the ITAT, addition of Rs. 23,90,000/- on account of money paid by appellant to his wife from his bank account deserves to be deleted." 9.4. On careful consideration of rival submissions, we find that on the very same set of facts, the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal had deleted the addition on the ground that the sole basis of the addition is presumption and assumption. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had upheld this finding. As claimed by the Ld. Departmental Representative there is no evidence found during the search. Only on estimates was made which is not based on any evidence. Thus, we uphold the order of the First Appellate Authority and dismiss ground no.6 of Revenue. In the result the appeal of the Revenue for A. Y. 2004-05 is later dismissed. 10. We now take up Revenue's appeal for the Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA no.2605/Del/2013. "1. The order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t at para 13.1 of Assessing Officer's order. The Assessing Officer arrived at total payments of US Dollars 48934. The Ld.DR submitted that in the absence of any explanation given by the assessee as to the source of funds into there overseas bank account this amount has been added. His further submissions are at para G of his submissions, wherein he states as follows: "(G) Issue of renovation of Sonali Farm from overseas bank a/c:- (1) This issue is relevant to Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2006-07. In Assessment Year 2005- 06 (para 13), the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 21.34 lacs. Assessing Officer has discussed the relevant Annexure A-2(pages 35-37) which revealed engagement of various consultants from abroad for renovation of Sonali Farm which documents were being termed as mere rough estimates. On failure of the assessee to furnish the details of the foreign bank accounts from which these payments were made, the Assessing Officer, treated the payments as unexplained. (2) CIT(A) ignoring the specific non compliance of the assessee which only prompted the Assessing Officer to make the addition, as seen ;from his order (e.g. para 9.2 of his order) deleted the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court's order in the assessee's own case dt. 25.2.2013. We have already held while disposing off ground no.7 for the Assessment Year 2004-05 that the credits in the bank account at Singapore held by the assessee in Deutsche bank cannot be added. Consequently the debits from the very bank account which was used for investments in Sonali Farms cannot be added. In the result ground no.2 of the Revenue is dismissed. 13. Ground no.3 is on the issue of addition e of Rs. 41,88,22,533/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged commission income earned by the assessee on defence deals. The very same issue has been adjudicated by us in the Assessment Year 2004-05 vide ground no.2 at paras 6.3 to 6.8 at pages 32 to 36. The grounds for made in the addition and the facts of the case being the same, for the reasons given therein, and consistent with the view taken therein we uphold the order of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 14. Ground nos. 4 and 5 are on the issues of additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments made by assessee in M/s Claridges Hotels P.Ltd. This issue has been adjudicated by us in the Assessment Year 2004-05. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the addition to Rs. 2,66,31,299/- and allowing a relief of Rs. 2,82,34,008/- on account of undisclosed investment made by assessee in Sonali Farms from his undisclosed sources. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 7,44,07,498/- on account of undisclosed investment made by assessee in renovation of Sonali Farms in the form of payment to the overseas contractors from his overseas bank accounts. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 25,79,27,065/- made by Assessing Officer on account of commission income earned by assessee against contracts in defence deals. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 44,16,86,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments made by assessee in M/s Claridges Hotels (Pvt.) Ltd. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition to Rs. 23,43,64,000/- made by Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investments made by assessee in M/s Claridges Hotels (Pvt.) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... addition made in the assessment year 2004-05. We have dealt with this issue as ground no. 3 for the assessment year 2004-05 at para 7.3 to para7.5 of this order. Consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss this ground of the revenue. Ground no.7 relates to an addition made on the ground that the assessee had unexplained deposits with Deutsche Bank, Singapore. The Very same issue was dealt by us as ground no.5, while adjudicating the appeal for the assessment year 2004-05, at para 8.3, we applied the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court and dismissed the ground of Revenue. Consistent view taken therein, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT (A) and dismissed ground no.7 of the Revenue. Ground no.8 is an addition on the ground that the assessee would have made certain payments to his former wife Smt. Renu Nanda on an estimate basis. Similar issue was dealt by us, while disposing ground no.6 for the assessment year 2004-05. As the basis of the addition remains the same for all the assessment years, consistent with the view taken therein, we uphold the order of the first appellate authority and dismiss ground no.8 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied on the order of the Assessing Officer and pointed out that the addition was based on certain seized material which is analysed in detail at para 8 of his order. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee made detailed submissions: 1) That the running account bills raised by the contractor were scrutinized by the assessee or his appointed experts and after disallowing many of the claims, for the approved amount, afresh R. A. bills was raised, by the contractors. 2) There is no evidence of any payments in cash or otherwise over and above the approved and passed bills. 3) That the contract value is Rs. 5,09,00,000/- as per the agreement and ther is no basis for the contract value of Rs. 10,57,65,307/- arrived. 21. We have considered the rival submissions. The sum and substance of the assessee's submissions are that the facts were placed before the Assessing Officer in letters dt. 30.11.09, 14.12.09 and 25.12.09 which was not considered. He submits that original running account bills which were submitted have crystallized only after disallowing the part of the claims. The scaled down amount was paid. 21.1 His case is that, there is no evidence whatsoever that the total contract value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the above of the judgment of Hon'ble High Court in the case of C. Ramaiah Reddy vs. CIT (2011)61DTR(Kar.) 82. 3. That while deleting the azddtions namely (i) Rs. 104,68,35,904/- representing investment of UBS Ltd. Mauritius in three Indian companies and (ii)Rs.34,60,000/- being share capital invested by Palm Technology. Mauritius in Tsunami Technologies P. Ltd. (now known as Claridges SEZ P. Ltd.), the Ld. CIT (A) in pars 3.7 and 8.3 of his order has erred in directing the Assessing Officer "to Pursue the reference to Mauritius through FT & TR Division of CBDT aznd any further investigation that may be required to ascertain the truth. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the addition of Rs. 25,48,12,645/- made son the basis of certain documents recovered by Delhi Police from the possession of Dr. M. V. Rao ought to have been deleted on substantive basis instead of deleting the addition for statistical purpose directing the Assessing Officer to follow the ITAT's order dt.24.07.2012 wherein similar addition made for A. Y. 2001-02.2002-03 and 2003-04 was restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. 5. The Ld. CIT (A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
