9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 466X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the AO. Further, from the copies of the letter noted that the assessee again requested to provide copies of the documents and statements and to provide opportunity of cross-examination, but, unable to see any action by the AO on the said consecutive three requests of the assessee. Respectfully note that their Lordships, in the case of Pradeep Kumar Gupta [ 2006 (11) TMI 184 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the assessment proceedings on the basis of deposition of third party without allowing opportunity of cross-examination of the said party to the assessee despite specific demand was not valid. Thus addition made by the AO and upheld by the ld.CIT(A) is not valid and sustainable - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1143/Del/20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hri S.K. Jain recorded by the Investigation Wing. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee submitted the following documents to show the genuineness of transaction:- Bank statement of the assessee (showing receipt of amounts) Bank statement of Virgin. Confirmed copy of a/c. of assessee in the books of Virgin. ITR acknowledgement of Virgin for A.Y. 2009 -2010. Complete audited financial statement of A.Y.2009 -2010 of Virgin. Asstt. order U/s. 153 C / 153 A in the case of Virgin for A.Y. 2009-2010 (accepting the books and the returned income, this shows that AO of payer has also accepted genuineness of this transaction). Application form for equity shares for Rs. 10 lacs. Board Resolution dtd. 08.10.2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation against the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that during the assessment proceedings the assessee filed three letters dated 11.08.2016, 26.10.2016 and 17.11.2016 requesting the AO to provide copies of all such adverse material on the basis of which adverse inference has been drawn, but, the same was never provided to the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that the author of the page 1 of the diary is not known, pages of diary was without title, therefore, no logical meaning can be assigned to a single page. The ld. AR submitted that only few pages have been given as an annexure to the assessment order which was never confronted to the assessee during assessment proceedings, therefore, cannot be used against the assessee as per the principl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted that reassessment proceedings was initiated in the case of the assessee for AY 2009-10 on the information of the Investigation Wing that Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain has provided accommodation entries to the assessee company and on verification and examination, it was found that the transaction of investment of Rs.10 lakh in the investor company was sham transaction. Therefore, the AO was right in making the addition in the hands of the assessee and the ld.CIT(A) was also correct and justified in upholding the same. 9. On careful consideration of the above, first of all, I note some glaring facts and circumstances of the present case. The ld. Sr. DR has not controverted that the assessee filed copies of bank statement of the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tarun Goyal was also not offered for the cross-examination. The remand report of the AO before the CIT (A) unmistakably showed that the attempts by the AO, in ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal for cross-examination by the Assessees, did not succeed. The onus of ensuring the presence of Mr. Tarun Goyal, whom the Assessees clearly stated that they did not know, could not have been shifted to the Assessees. The onus was on the Revenue to ensure his presence. Apart from the fact that Mr. Tarun Goyal has retracted his statement, the fact that he was not produced for cross-examination is sufficient to discard his statement 11. In the present case also, the assessee discharged the onus lay on its shoulders as per the requirement of sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
