9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 352X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - 2-9-2016 - Shri H. S. Sidhu, Judicial Member Department by : None Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv. Sh. P.K. Kamal ORDER Per H. S. Sidhu, J. M. The Department has filed the Appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection which is emanate from the Order dated 16.9.2015 of Ld. CIT(A)-6, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2005-06. The grounds raised in the revenue s appeal reads as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 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 discha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 was issued on 31.03.2012 through speed post at the wrong addresses i.e. 39/1, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and despite the fact that new address of the company was within the knowledge of the assessing officer. According to the assessee, this notice was never served upon the assessee. AO observed that it reveals that notices u/s 142(1) were issued on 13.08.2012,8.10.12,27.11.12 and 14.12.12 4.03.2013 but the same were also never received by the assessee since issued at the wrong address. Thereafter, the assessee received the copy of final notice 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 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment proceedings were adjourned to 20.03.2013. On 20.03.2013, the proceedings were verbally adjourned to 26.03.13 but on that date, the AO refused to accept the additional documents and therefore the same were sent by the assessee through speed post. Thereafter, the AO completed the assessment vide his order dated 26.03.13 u/s. 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and added the sum of ₹ 60 lakhs and further an amount of ₹ 60,000/- was added being commission paid @1% u/s. 69C of the Act being expenditure incurred out of undisclosed sources. 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 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. But from the bank statement, the source of funds for M/s Cubic Commercials, in most of the cases was clearance of cheques, to advance money to the assessee. With regard to the receipt of money assessee stated that it received ₹ 60 Lakhs from M/s Cubic Commercial against booking of property. Copy of the agreement of sale was also produced before the assessing officer (last para of page 2 of the assessment order). With this evidence the onus has shifted from assessee to assessing officer. But AO made no attempts to disprove the contents of the sale agreement. None of the 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 assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... veracity of these documents, to probe the matter further. However, to discredit the documents produced by the assessee on the aspects, there have to be some cogent reasons and materials for the Assessing Officer and he cannot go into the realm of suspicion. Held, dismissing the appeal, that the addition was rightly deleted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. Requisite documents were furnished showing the existence of the shareholders from accounts and even their Income- tax details. From hank accounts of these shareholders, it was found that they had deposited certain cash and the source thereof was questionable. The Assessing Officer should have made further probe which he failed to do. Moreover, the remedy with the Depar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtain evidence, the onus lies on the AO to cause enquiries / verification to demolish that evidence. In the present case, no such attempt has been made by the AO to cause enquiries / verification to demolish that evidence. In the present case, no such attempt has been made by the AO. And no enquiry or verification was ever done by him. The addition made is hereby deleted. In effect, the appeal is partly allowed. 8.1 After going through the findings of the Ld. CIT(A), as aforesaid, I am of the considered view that it is a well settled law that addition cannot be made simply basing on some report like Report received from Investigation Wing etc. and when the assessee produces certain evidence, the onus lies on the AO to caus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
