TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (6) TMI 234
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. AO u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the hands of assessee under the contention that the accounts to which the money is credited are the alleged benami accounts of the assessee, without considering the evidences filed during assessment proceedings and once again referred during appellate proceedings, and therefore, addition confirmed to the extent of Rs. 25,54,150/- may please be deleted. 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts while confirming the addition made by the Ld AO, where such addition is made under predetermined mind set about material & documents seized during the course of search proceedings relevant to AY 2001-2002 to AY 2007-08 and not the period under consideration i.e. 2008-09, and as such addition confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 25,54,150/- made by the AO u/s 69 of the Act in hands of the assessee under the contention that the account to which the money is credited is alleged benami account of the assessee, without considering the evidences filed during the assessment proceedings and again referred during appellate proceedings. The ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently contended that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition where such addition is made under predetermined mind set about material and document seized during the course of search proceeding relevant to AY 2001-02 to 2007-08 and not relevant to the period under consideration i.e. AY 2008-09 and therefore, such addition may please be d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he hands of Shri Virendra Kumar Arora, Shri Rajesh Kumar Arora and Shri Rakesh Kumar Arora i.e. assessee of the present case, then its effect will be given in the assessment. Hence, it is clear that the AO made addition subject to the prospective order of the Settlement Commission. 8. From careful perusal of the impugned order, we note that the CIT(A) deleted the part addition of Rs. 24,59,600/- in respect of bank account and in the name of M/s Samar Organics Pvt. Ltd. with following observations and conclusion: "6. (i) In respect of M/s Samar Organics Pvt. Ltd. on the basis of the details filed by appellant, it is observed that the company is an existing entity duly registered with the ROC. Same is also evident from the details filed dur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g of the impugned order we also note that the CIT(A) confirmed the remaining part of impugned deposits in the hands of assessee and also directed the AO to follow the order of the settlement commission in respect of other alleged 10 accounts (other than account of M/s Samar Organics Pvt. Ltd.). The relevant operative part of impugned order read thus: "Therefore the peak calculation of Rs. 4,95,000/- in the Para 5.16 is without basis and cannot be verified. In view of above facts it is concluded that the appellant is in some way having a relation with the bank accounts operated in the names of these entities. I therefore confirm the addition of Rs. 25,54,150/-. The AO was not sure while making the assessment as to whether the addition shoul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be sustainable by the Settlement Commission vide order dated 20.10.2014 which was passed after the assessment order dated 28/12/2010 and impugned order of the CIT(A) dated 30.11.2011. 11. The relevant operative part of the order of the Settlement Commission reads at internal page 16 & 17 as follows: "1. Sanjeev Mehindru - He is the proprietor of M/s Lakshmi Narayan Corporation and M/s Lakshmi Narayan Corporation and M/s Mahalaxmi Thinners & Chemicals appearing at Sl. No. 4 & & of the 16 entities listed at issues no 1. The assessing officer summoned the said person u/s 131 IT Act and the has acknowledged the ownership of the bank accounts operated by him on behalf of his proprietorship concerns namely; M/s Mahalaxmi Thinners & Chemicals. I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of his proprietorship concerns Mahaveer Chemicals, Sunshine Paints and Chemicals, Shri Ram Enterprises. It has been reported by the CIT that the said persons is filling regular return of income and notice under section 148 has also been issued for assessment year 2007-08 on 20.3.2014 it is also reported that the transaction which is Rekesh Arora were joint business transaction for purchase and sale. (Para 9 (9.1)(3) at page 30 of this Synopsis). 4. Girdhari Lal Swami - He is the proprietor of M/s. Devta Chemicals Company (No.3 of the 16 entities). The assessing officer summoned the said person u/s. 131 of IT Act and he has acknowledged the ownership of the bank account operated by him on behalf of his proprietorship concerns Devta Chemical....