9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (1) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both these statements were used against the assessee for making the additions. It is not clear from the Order whether such statements were provided to assessee for explanation or any right of cross-examination have been given to assessee to cross-examine these witnesses. In this view of the matter both the parties rightly suggested that the matter may be directed to the file of A.O. for re-consideration of the issues. In this view of the matter, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and restore both the additions to the file of A.O. with a direction to re-decide the same by giving reasonable, sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. - ITA.No.2592/Del./2016 - - - Dated:- 21-1-2020 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the assessment u/s.153A/143(3) of the Act without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was conducted at the business/residential premises of the assessee on 16.11.2010. The assessee belongs to M/s. Era Infra Engineering Group of Cases. The A.O. issued statutory notice under section 153A and called for the details from the assessee. The A.O. noted that assessee is engaged in business of Civil Construction activities on contract basis. As per the information submitted by the assessee company, during the year under conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hether he has any experience in construction activity or any professional person to handle the construction work. He has categorically stated that neither in his individual capacity nor does the company M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd., have any expertise to handle construction work. He has categorically stated that no construction work has been carried-out in his company M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd. He has also admitted that he and his Company are involved in providing accommodation entries. The A.O. in view of these facts noted that no work has been executed by M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd., and the expenses claimed by assessee-company are bogus. The assessee has further submitted that Company has received contracts from M/s. Suzlon Infr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A), which have been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and the appeal of assessee has been dismissed. 3. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material on record. This appeal was heard with appeal for the A.Y. 2009-2010 which is decided vide separate Order having different facts. Some clarification was required, therefore, this appeal was fixed on 15.01.2020 and was finally heard on the same day. 4. The assessee in this appeal has challenged the Orders of the authorities below that there is no incriminating material found during the course of search on assessee on 16.11.2010. However, the record shows that at page-73 assessee has filed copy of the acknowledgment of filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assing the Order afresh, as per Law. 7. Considering the facts of the case in the light of submissions of the both the parties, we are of the view that the matter in issue on merits requires re-consideration at the level of the A.O. It is not in dispute that addition on protective basis was made of ₹ 4,39,90,559/- on the basis of statement of Shri Aditya Chirman, Director of M/s. Safeco Projects Pvt. Ltd. The A.O. did not get any information as to in whose case substantive addition have been made. This fact is also not clarified by the Ld. D.R. during the course of arguments. The other addition of ₹ 22,28,600/- is made on the basis of statement of some entry provider of bogus bills. Even his name is not mentioned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
