9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 467X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid persons during the cross examination has denied any sort of dealings with the assessee and in fact has even failed to identify the assessee. They have furnished their duly sworn affidavits deposing these facts(supra). No direct of corroborative evidence could be discovered by the ld.AO from the assessee's possession, which could substantiate the alleged addition. It is not at all the case where the assessee has made an unexplained investment of cash. The Assessing Officer merely summarized the salient features of the assessment proceedings relating to Shri Brij Mohan Gupta and thereafter summarily rejected the reply of the assessee as 'not acceptable'. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the addition of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on the basis of search proceedings in the case of Brij Mohan Gupta group, from where the AO received an information regarding the present assessee. Accordingly, the ld. AO issued show cause notice. Detailed reasons for reopening of the case u/s 148 were given and the assessee was asked to furnish the details mentioned therein. 2.2. In response to the aforementioned notice issued by the ld. AO the assessee filed a letter dated 17/12/08 in which it was claimed that no transaction has taken place between the assessee and Shri Brij Mohan Gupta Group. The assessee also confirmed that none of the partners of the firm, being Naveen Kumar or Rishi Kumar has ever had any transaction with the alleged Shri Brij Mohan Gupta Group. 2.3. The AO r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss examining these three persons and also to confront the statements and the documents recorded originally in the course of search proceedings. In the fresh statement and cross examining of Shri Ram Avtar and Shri Rajeev Gupta it was stated that they were involved in the business of Shri Brij Mohan Gupta and acted as per the instructions/directions of Shri Brij Mohan Gupta only. At the relevant time Shri Brij Mohan Gupta had demised. The ld. AO has recorded that Shri Ram Avtar Singhal and Rajeev Gupta denied that they knew any party by the name of M/s Rishi Kumar, Naveen Kumar and both of them failed to identify the assessee. The ld. AO completed the assessment on the same basis as the previous assessment order made addition of ₹ 20 l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... across any transaction of ₹ 20 lacs or any other financial transaction between Late Shri B.M. Gupta and Ram Avtar Singhal are placed at pages 16 to 19 of the PB. The ld. AR has submitted that the AO has not brought any corroborative evidence which could prove that the documents seized during the time of search on BM Gupta and Group had any relation with the assessee or its partners. 4.3. The ld. AR thus, contended that the AO could not corroborate the entries found in the seized material to justify the additions made in the case of the assessee. 4.4. On the contrary, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the AO. 4.5. From the facts enumerated above, it is clear that the Assessing Officer failed to establish any case against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
