9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the addition of Rs. 60,00,000 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act (me Act) on account of disallowance for receiving bogus accommodation entries even when the assessee did not discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance e case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 60,000 made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act on account of commission paid for arranging the accommodation entries even when the assessee did riot discharge its onus u/s 69 of the Act? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) having noticed want of proper enquiry is justified in allowing the appeal and deleting disallowance made without ensur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 142(1) from one Mr. Jolly having his office at 3911, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi through email on 18.12.2012. Subsequently, the assessee objected to the service of the alleged notice u/s 148 and requested the AO, vide letter dated 21.12.2012, to treat the original return as the return filed in response to notice u/s 148. The assessee, vide letter dated 21.12.2012, also requested for the copy of the reasons recorded u/s 148 which was supplied to the assessee on the same date. In response to the same, the assessee filed objections against the initiation of reassessment proceedings vide letter dated 7.2.2013 wherein it was stated that the assessee had received the advance of Rs. 60,00,000/- in terms of agreement to sell the property from M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Aggrieved with the aforesaid assessment order, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 16.9.2015 has deleted the additions in dispute and partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 4. Now the Revenue is aggrieved against the impugned order and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In this case, Notice of hearing to both the parties, in spite of the same, Department nor its Representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment by the Department. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e directors of M/s Cubic Commercials were summoned by the AO. No letter of enquiry were also issued to the company or its Pr. Officers. AO did not ask the assessee also to produce them. The entire addition was based on the statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta who was neither a share holder nor a director of M/s Cubic Commercials. But the copy of the sworn statement of Sh. S.K. Gupta was never made available to the assessee. Even on 15th March, 2013 assessee again requested for copy of the statement and requested for cross examination of Sh. S.K. Gupta, which was not provided to the assessee. As per the letter dt. 30.03.2012 of ACIT, Central Circle 18, New Delhi addressed to the AO, Sh. Aneja Ji is the conduit for these accommodation entries. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce thereof was questionable. The Assessing Officer should have made further probe which he failed to do. Moreover, the remedy with the Department lay in reopening the case of the investors and the addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. MOD CREATIONS PVT. LTD. (Delhi) All documents filed Sufficient balance in accounts of creditors Just four days time given to produce the the sub creditors Assessee need not prove either genuineness of transactions executed between creditors and sub creditors or creditworthiness of sub creditors. AO made no attempts to verify sources of sub creditors, when all details about them are available Addition deleted. 3571TR 146 (Del)- FAIR FINVEST LTD. Recent affidavits filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oduces certain evidence, the onus lies on the AO to cause enquiries/ verification to demolish that evidence. However, in the present case no such attempt has been made by the AO and no enquiry or verification was ever done by him. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly relied upon the following various case laws of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein similar and identical situation was dealt with and the addition in dispute was deleted. - 333 ITR 119 (Del) Oasis Hospitalities P. Ltd. - MOD Creations Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi) - 357 ITR 146 (Del) Fair Finvest Ltd. - 361 ITR 10 (Del) Gangeshwari Metal P Ltd. - 361 ITR 155 (Del) Nipua Auto Pvt. Ltd. 8.2 In the background of the aforesaid discussions and precedents relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
