TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (12) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its appearing in the bank account of State Bank of Saurashtra, not belonging to the assessee and further erred in making the said addition on protective basis. 2. That under the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in invoking provisions of Sec. 251 for making enhancement and that too on protective basis. This act of the ld. CIT(A) is without jurisdiction and unwarranted. 3. That without prejudice, no protective additions can be made while exercising the powers u/s 251 of the Act. 4. That without prejudice, under the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law as well as on merits in making enhancement of Rs. 27,480/- on protective basis for credits in Bank A/c No.1552 with Bank of Baroda, Pusa Road, New Delhi. 5. That without prejudice under the facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in law as well as on merits in making enhancement of Rs. 3,90,000/- on protective basis for credits in State Bank of Saurashtra, Patparganj, Delhi being on account of totaling error in calculating total credits in said bank account to the extent of Rs.3,90,000/-. 6. That under the facts and circumstances, proceedings u/s 147/148 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore not allowing the expenditure as claimed in the profit and loss account filed by the appellant. 4. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing credit for TDS amounting to Rs.52,214/- on interest income of Rs.2,55,952/- on the ground that TDS has been deducted in the name of Nextwave India Pvt. Ltd. and not in the name of Nextwave India (AOP). 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or modify the above grounds of appeal." In other years, similar grounds are raised with modification in the quantum of addition. 4. At the time of hearing before us, Shri R.K. Gupta, CA, appeared on behalf of NextWave India (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred as Pvt. Ltd.). He stated that the assessee is a private limited company. During the course of assessment proceedings for the years under appeal, it was informed by the AO that there is a bank account in the State Bank of Saurashtra, Patparganj, in the name of the assessee from which the business of providing accommodation entries was carried on. When the assessee made the inquiry, it was found that the bank account was not opened by the assessee but by Shri B. Bhushan and his wife Renu Bhushan. The assessee filed FIR again....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that the AO added the entire credit in the bank account. He explained that Mr. and Mrs. Bhushan were carrying on financing business in the AOP. There was receipt of the money from various parties and the advances given to the various parties. Income earned by the assessee was by way of interest, which has already been offered as income of the assessee. That during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO gathered the information from the lenders u/s 133(6)/131. However, ignoring the information, the AO assessed the entire receipt. In support of his contention that the AO gathered the information u/s 133(6)/131, he produced before us the letter written by the AO to the CIT(A) wherein he has mentioned "Information gathered u/s 133(6)/131 are also placed in the relevant assessment folder." He stated that this information was neither confronted to the assessee nor discussed in the assessment order. If any such information is collected behind the back of the assessee and it is in favour of the assessee, then the addition in respect of such parties should not have been made. If the information is against the assessee, he should have been confronted with the same and should h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the statement recorded u/s 131, Mr. B. Bhushan admitted that the bank accounts belonged to himself and his wife. iii) As per the MOU between the Pvt. Ltd. and Mr. B. Bhushan, Mr. Bhushan admitted that the bank accounts belonged to him and his wife and not to the Pvt. Ltd. iv) In response to notice u/s 148 in the case of AOP, Mr. Bhushan filed the return disclosing interest income. During the assessment proceedings of AOP, Mr. Bhushan admitted that the bank accounts belonged to AOP and not the Pvt. Ltd. v) The AO also formed the opinion that the bank accounts belonged to Bhushans and, thus, assessable in the hands of AOP and, therefore, substantive addition is made in the hands of AOP. vi) During the course of appellate proceedings before us, Shri Niraj Jain and Shri P.K. Mishra, CA, the learned counsels for AOP, stated in the open court that the bank accounts are owned by the AOP and are assessable in its hands in accordance with law. 8. In view of the totality of the above facts, we hold that the bank accounts belonged to M/s NextWave India (AOP) and not NextWave India(P) Ltd. Therefore, the protective additions made by the AO and enhancement thereof by the CIT(A) are ....