9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 32X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that assessee discharged its primary onus in terms of Section 68 of the Act. Relying on judgment of ITAT Mumbai Bench in the case of ITO vs. M/s. Superline Construction (P) Ltd. and another (2015 (12) TMI 1453 - ITAT MUMBAI ) and various other judgments cited by the assessee, the addition in question is deleted. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 208/JP/2014 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri S.L. Poddar, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri Raj Mehra, JCIT-DR ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 20-02-2014 for the assessment year 2003-04 wherein the assessee has raised followi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which assessee claimed to be violation of principles of natural justice. Drawing an adverse inference from these facts, ld. AO added the amount as unexplained cash credit. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition by following observations. 3.3 I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant s written submission. Assessing Officer made addition in respect of share capital of ₹ 5 lacs received from M/s. Enpol (P) Ltd. since Shri Deepak Gupta in his statement to the Investigation Wing admitted that this company was used to issue accommodation entries against payment of unaccounted cash. Assessing Officer issued notice to the said company however the notice could not be served by postal authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Department to exist and operate entry accommodation system which is further clear from Investigation Wing report. The observation of the ld. CIT(A) that cross examination of Shri Deepak Gupta was not provided as it becomes secondary as Shri Deepak Gupta does not exist is an untenable and a self contradictory observation. It goes to root of the addition and makes it unsustainable. (ii) On one hand, the Investigation Wing claims that Shri Deepak Gupta exist and on the other hand ld. CIT(A) held that Shri Deepak Gupta does not exist and denied that cross examination treating it is meaningless. Thus the approach adopted and adverse inferences drawn in this behalf are self contradictory and make the addition totally baseless. These unjust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2157/Mum/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 (6) ITO 10(2) vs M/s. Blue Hill Properties (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 2119/Mum/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 (7) CIT vs. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. (2008) 216 CTR 195 (SC) 3.3 The ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that the assessee having discharged its burden and Department having refused to cross-examine the alleged operator of accommodation entry provider, there is no justification for addition. Reliance is placed on:- (1) Sarthak Securities (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2010) 329 ITR 110 (Del) (2) Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51. (3) CIT vs. Sfil Stock Broking Ltd. (2010) 325 ITR 285 (4) Kerla Glue Factory vs. Sales Tax Tribunal 65 CTR 233 (SC) (5) Vasantlal Co. vs. CIT ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
