9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 722X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ls) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in not taking cognizance of the confirmations letters / statement recorded by the Assessing Officer in response to summon u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 who produced their identification papers, statement of accounts and other documents for confirming corpus donation having been given to the appellant Trust. The corpus donation of Rs.2,94,00,000/- is liable to be excluded from Total income as per the provisions of section 11(1)(d) of Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not admitting the affidavits of the directors / accountant of the donor companies who appeared before the Assessing Officer in response to the summon u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as additional evidence for confirming the facts of having given corpus donation to the appellant trust. 4. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in relying on the observations of the Assessing Officer that the donor companies are bogus companies floated to transfer funds from one entity to the other for siphoning off of money from flagship concern in order to evad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the appeal filed by the assessee. The said order of the Ld.CIT(A) was called in question before this Tribunal in ITA No. 1875/Del/2018 and this Tribunal vide order dated 10.07.2019, remanded the matter to the file of AO to decide afresh after affording opportunity of being heard to the assessee. During the reassessment proceedings since there was no new material brought on record by the assessee, the AO once again made the addition of Rs.2,94,00,000/- vide assessment order dated 31.12.2010. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 31.12.2010, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 11.03.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, which is called in question by the assessee in the present appeal. 6. We have heard the Ld. DR, perused the material on record. 7. During the second round of litigation before the AO, the assessee has not produced any new material or evidence, therefore, the AO once again made the addition of Rs.2,94,00,000/-. During the appeal proceedings, while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee the CIT(A) has held as under: - "4. I have considered the facts of the case and the written submissions o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s again made to the total income of the assessee." 4.3 The reason for the same as summed up from the original Assessment order and the Appellate order dated 31.03.2008 are as under: 1. Simply because the amounts were received by cheque and the parties are assessed to cheques does not establish the genuineness of the donations claimed to have been received from them. 2. The persons produced by the assessee in response to summons u/s 131claiming that they were directors of the above named companies, did not have any identification papers or books of account. 3. The search and seizure operation was carried out on Group USHA of Sh. Vinay Rai on 14.2.2001. Detailed investigation by the Investigation Wing and post search enquiries established the fact of having floated around 250 bogus companies by the group. As many as 9 flagship concerns were identified and the name of all the three Donor Companies in the present case figures out in the list. Involvement of Sh. Vinay Rai in promoting bogus companies has also been established with the help of the seized documents. 4. Affidavits by Sh. M. N. Choudhary, Sh. Sanjay Gupta, Sh. Dinesh Gupta and Sh. Vinay Rai were filed during ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of M/s Koshika Telecom Ltd. and Information Technologies India Ltd. Sh. Dinesh Gupta who appeared on behalf of M/s Gordon Herbert (India) Ltd stated himself to be an accountant in School of Management and Science at 12/1, Mathura Road, Faridabad. He also did not have any Power of Attorney or other evidence authorising him to appear before the AO on behalf of the company. In fact, he had no locus standi at all to appear before the AO. As regards affidavits of these three persons filed during the course of appellate proceedings, these affidavits not only state that these persons appeared before the AO but they are stating so many other facts which were Rot stated by them during the course of their deposition before the AO on 24.3.05. Therefore, these affidavits are additional evidence and none of the conditions of rule 46A is satisfied for admission of additional evidence. Therefore, these affidavits are not admitted as additional evidence. Further, no comments have been offered with regard to the observations of the AO wherein it is stated that the above named parties along with the assessee are some of the many companies and floated by Usha Group in order to siphon off money f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
