9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee has also filed cross objections against these appeals of the Revenue. 2. Brief facts of the cases are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2010-11 on 27.09.2008 and 25.09.2010 declaring income of Rs. 2,50,769/- and Rs. 6,12,550/- respectively and the same were processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 3. There was a search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act carried out in Bindal Group of cases including the assessee on 07.03.2014, in which, according to the Revenue, various books of account/documents etc. were found and seized and statements of various persons were also recorded. Subsequently, assessee was issued a notice u/s. 153A of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ove conclusively that the said share capital and premium, received is generated out of unexplained income of the assessee routed through it as an accommodation entry. Learned CIT(A) further held that the statement of Mr. Rajesh Agarwal is not directly related to the case of the assessee and was taken before the search. Lastly, ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer based the addition at the behest of the suggestion by DDIT(Investigation) regarding retraction of statement by Mr. Bhagat and therefore, such an opinion was not independent one without being supported by any further material. 5. Before the ld. CIT(A), assessee also challenged the addition to be unsustainable on the ground that there was no incriminating material found or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as found during the search with regard to the alleged bogus investment and the Assessing Officer based the addition at the suggestion of DDIT(Investigation) and the statement of Mr. Bhagat stood an uncorroborated statement, which cannot be a basis for making any addition. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) and others in ITA No. 23/2021 and batch by order dated 12.02.2021 wherein the court held in unequivocal terms that the statements recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) P. Ltd. (2017) 84 taxmann.com 287 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, on standalone basis such statement does not empower the Assessing Officer to frame the block assessment without there being any material discovered during the search and seizure operations. In so far as the merits are concerned, the observations of the ld. CIT(A) are lawful and his conclusions are impeccable. The statement of Mr. Brijesh Bhagat on standalone basis cannot afford any support to the addition and in view of the decisions of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), such a statement requires corroboration of some other material discovered during the search and seizure operations. It, therefore, follows that any addition contrary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
