9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequently retracted his statement. Therefore, his statement made earlier become doubtful as claimed by the Assessee and cannot be relied as substantive evidence. Even otherwise, we have failed to understand that how the name as mentioned in the said diary, as NENSIBHI ELLA can be attributed to the Assessee s name. Further, how the coded amount of Rs. 32,500 can be construed as Rs. 3,25,000,00/-. How the Assessee is connected with the said narration of entries written in diary. As per Assessee s claim, the mobile number noted in said diary is even otherwise do not belong to the Assessee and the AO also failed to verify the owner of the said number to connect with the Assessee. Thus retracted statement of Shri Nilesh Bharani/ M/s Evergree ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erprises with an undisclosed activity of money lending and borrowing in unaccounted cash loan and interest thereon. As per the information received, the Assessee has lent cash loan of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- in the financial year 2011-12. The information available was carefully perused. On the basis of aforesaid information available with the AO coupled with the fact that no scrutiny assessment was completed for the A.Y. 2012-13", the Assessing Officer formed the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax as indicated above to the tune of Rs. 3,25,00,000/- had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act, as the Assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts in the year under consideration by furnishing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oss examination to the Assessee and by considering the aforesaid entries in the diary seized during the course of search, made the addition of Rs. 3,25,000,00/- under section 69A of the Act. Further, the AO also added an amount of Rs. 39,00,000/- on account of alleged interest paid @12% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 3,25,00,000/-. 7. The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the aforesaid additions as well as reopening of the case before the Ld. Commissioner, who, by impugned order not only affirmed the reopening of the case under section 147 / 148 of the Act but also affirmed the additions on merit, by reproducing the assessment order in entirety and concluding as under:- "On the other hand, the appellant has not much to offer with regard to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the same diary in coded word. For clarity ready reference, we are again reproducing the entries relied upon by the Assessing Officer:- "i) Code "E/11/N"- ii) Name as per Ledger "NENSIBHI ELLA" iii) Coded Amount (in "000) - 32500 iv) Contact person "NANCYBHAI - v) F.Y. 2011-12 10. It is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer has not entertained the Assessee's request for cross examination of Shri Nilesh Bharani / M/s Evergreen Enterprises and also it is a fact that Shri Nilesh Bharani subsequently retracted his statement. Therefore, his statement made earlier become doubtful as claimed by the Assessee and cannot be relied as substantive evidence. Even otherwise, we have failed to understand that how the name as mentioned in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
