9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) had called for a remand report from the AO and he has noted about the same in his order that in the remand report, the AO had confirmed that he had recorded the sworn statements of Shri.Arun Nayak and Shri.Pradeep Kumar Shenoy under Section 132(4) and 131 of the IT Act and they have not stated anything adverse against the Assessee. Therefore, their statements were not used by AO in scrutiny assessments. According to AO, nothing adverse was stated by him against the Assessee. Above all, it is relevant to notice that the payments through cheques have commenced from 2.5.2006 and ended on 31.5.2013. The e-mail is of the year 2010. In AO's order, the explanation given by Assessee has been recorded and it shows that according to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s which contained cash payments amounting to ₹5,00,00,000/- made to M/s.T.V.Aleyas Engineers Pvt.LTd., and assessee had not satisfactorily explained the said payments and as such assessee failed to discharge burden of proof? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in deleting the addition made under Section 69C of the Act for ₹1,09,05,000/- as interest by erroneously holding that the materials relied upon by assessing authority for making such addition is not reliable piece of evidence and entries found with regard to the payment through cheque do not co-relate with the entries found in the books of account even though the seized document contains information that the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377;5 crores was agreed to be paid in cash. The same is corroborated by the seized material which is at page 9 and e-mail page No.11 of the assessment order. In substance, he submitted that the books of accounts reflected payment of ₹19.30 crores, whereas in the explanation given by Assessee, a payment of ₹22.30 crores has been shown. According to him, the explanation also suggests that initial proposal was to pay ₹17.30 crores by way of cheque and balance sum of ₹5 crores by cash. Therefore, based on Assessee's statement and the seized material on record, AO was justified in adding the aforementioned amounts. Assailing the order passed by CIT(A), he submitted that CIT(A) has merely tabulated the payments made t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e on paras 4.11 and 4.12 of the assessment order and page 9 containing a tabular column as well as page 11 of e-mail sent by one S.Pradeep Kumar Shenoy. A cumulative reading of paras 4.11 and 4.12 shows that the Assessee had proposed to pay a sum of ₹17.30 crores in cheque and balance sum of ₹5 crores in cash. CIT(A) has extracted entire payment schedule with dates in para 4.12 of his order. We may record that payments have commenced from 2.5.2006 and ended on 31.5.2013. On an analysis of the payments contained in tabular column, the CIT(A) has recorded in 4.13 as follows: 4.13 From the above table, it is clear that the appellant paid ₹16.60 crores to TVAEPL in 19 transactions from 26.07.2006 to 11.07.2012. Similarly, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Revenue is a sheet of paper found during search. The e-mail produced at page 11 is dated March 17, 2010 and the same is sent by Shri.Pradeep Kumar Shenoy. His statement has been recorded by AO as mentioned in the remand report. According to AO, nothing adverse was stated by him against the Assessee. Above all, it is relevant to notice that the payments through cheques have commenced from 2.5.2006 and ended on 31.5.2013. The e-mail is of the year 2010. In para 4.12 of AO's order, the explanation given by Assessee has been recorded and it shows that according to the Assessee, initial sum of ₹5 crores was sought to be paid in cash, but subsequently the same has been paid in cheque. Both CIT(A) and ITAT which are the last f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
