Tribunal allows appeals, invalidates assessment under Section 153A, stresses cross-examination rights.

The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, deleting additions for unexplained share capital and alleged commission. It held the assessment under Section 153A invalid due to lack of incriminating material found during the search. Emphasizing the importance of providing cross-examination opportunities for third-party witnesses, the Tribunal ruled that statements recorded without such opportunities cannot be used against the assessee. The decision aligned with principles set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Supreme Court on assessment validity and evidentiary value of search operation statements.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 3.60 crores under Section 68 on account of share capital.
2. Addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries.
3. Validity of assessment under Section 153A.
4. Lack of incriminating material found during the search.
5. Opportunity for cross-examination of a third party witness.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Addition of Rs. 3.60 crores under Section 68 on account of share capital:
The assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 3.60 crores made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 68, claiming it as unexplained cash credit. The AO alleged that the share application money received was an accommodation entry and added it to the assessee's income. The assessee argued that no incriminating material was found during the search to support this addition. The Tribunal noted that no loose papers or other evidence indicating accommodation entries in the form of share capital were found during the search. The Tribunal relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla and CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd., which held that in the absence of incriminating material, additions cannot be made under Section 153A for completed assessments. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the addition of Rs. 3.60 crores.

2. Addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- on account of alleged commission paid for obtaining accommodation entries:
The AO made an addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- as unexplained expenditure, alleging that the assessee paid commission for obtaining accommodation entries. The assessee contended that no incriminating material was found during the search to support this addition. The Tribunal observed that the AO's addition was based on presumption without any supporting evidence. The Tribunal reiterated that no incriminating material was found during the search to establish the payment of commission. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- was also deleted.

3. Validity of assessment under Section 153A:
The assessee argued that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid as it was not based on any incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal referred to the legal position summarized by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla, which held that in the absence of incriminating material, completed assessments cannot be interfered with under Section 153A. The Tribunal concluded that since no incriminating material was found during the search, the assessment under Section 153A was invalid.

4. Lack of incriminating material found during the search:
The Tribunal emphasized that no incriminating material related to share capital or payment of commission was found during the search. The Tribunal referred to the statement of Shri Anu Aggarwal, director of the assessee company, which indicated that the loose papers found during the search were related to unaccounted receipts from the sale of properties and unrecorded expenditure in the construction business. The Tribunal held that in the absence of any incriminating material related to share capital or commission, the additions made by the AO were out of the purview of Section 153A.

5. Opportunity for cross-examination of a third party witness:
The AO relied on the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal, who allegedly admitted to providing accommodation entries to the assessee. The assessee contended that the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal was recorded behind its back and it was not given an opportunity to cross-examine him. The Tribunal noted that the statement of a third party recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against the assessee unless an opportunity for cross-examination is provided. The Tribunal observed that despite specific directions from the CIT(A), the AO did not allow the assessee to cross-examine Shri Tarun Goyal. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the statement of Shri Tarun Goyal could not be used against the assessee.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee, deleting the additions made by the AO for unexplained share capital and alleged commission. The Tribunal held that the assessment under Section 153A was invalid in the absence of incriminating material found during the search. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of providing an opportunity for cross-examination of third party witnesses and reiterated that statements recorded behind the back of the assessee cannot be used against it without such an opportunity. The Tribunal's decision was based on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the validity of assessments under Section 153A and the evidentiary value of statements recorded during search operations.

---