9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (3) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 2. In ITA No.308/Kol/2011 for A.Yr.2006-07 the following grounds have been raised by the Revenue.: 1. That in facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the addition made on protective basis of ₹ 11,22,60,500/- by way of ignoring the statement made by the director of the assessee company before DDIT(Inv.)Kolkata. 2. That in facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting the 2% commission income of ₹ 22,45,210/- for entry provided by the assessee company which is based on a case unearthed by the DDIT (Inv.), Kolkata and decided by the Hon ble ITAT, Kolkata. 2.1. In the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.309/Kol/2011 only the figures are different from the on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hi, Director of the assessee company was summoned by the DDIT (Investigation), Kolkata on 15.12.2006 before whom he submitted on oath that he got cash at equivalent amount from the companies and against the same.. . cheques has been issued . He also gave a detailed list of cheques issued to various Mumbai based companies. However, in the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, Shri Suresh Kr.Sethi retracted his statement made earlier before the DDIT (Inv.) on 24.12.07 and also flied a sworn affidavit to that effect. The AO has rejected the retraction and observed that investigation conducted by the Investigation Wing revealed that cash was deposited by the assessee company in various bank accounts at 4 to 5 stages earlier. On this basis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... position is a computer typed copy, wherein the signature of Mr Suresh Kr Sethi is placed at the bottom Mr Sethi subsequently retracted his statement by filing affidavit in the course of assessment proceedings In the statement recorded on 24 12 07, he stated before the AO that he has not received any cash from any person on behalf of the investee companies He was forced to depose before the DDIT (Inv) in that way to save himself from harassment and to get immediate peace Therefore, we find no justification on the part of the AO to disbelieve the retraction We further observe that the AO s contention that cash was received from various entities against which cheques were issued by the assessee company is not substantiated in the absence of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive income in the form of commission. Therefore, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the commission income estimated by the AO for the alleged accommodation entries provided. Hence, this issue of the Revenue is also dismissed. 5.2 . It is further observed that ld. CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of assessee following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by observing as under :- 3.4. Considering above facts it is held that the addition made by the A.O. is not supported by any corroborative or supportive evidence. In Shrishail Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 866, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that, the retracted confession by an accused may form ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
