TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 346
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rgued the Ground No. 2 which is reproduced as under:- "2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in making addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- by treating it as undisclosed income of the assessee and that too without providing any adverse material on record and without considering the facts and circumstance of the case and without cross examination and in violation of principles of natural justice." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income of Rs. 45,465/- on 30.3.2011. A search and seizure operation was carried in Mahesh Mehta Group of Cases on 30.6.2009 and the assessee company was covered u/s. 133A of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal. 6. At the time of hearing, Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that although the Assessee has raised 06 grounds in the Appeal, but he is only pressing the ground no. 2, as aforesaid. At the threshold, he drew our attention towards the Paper Book filed by the Assessee containing pages 1 to 101 in which he has attached the Written Submissions filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith the Statement of Sh. Ajay Singhal recorded u/s. 133A of the Act by the Department and few case laws supported the averments made by the Assessee in the Written Submissions and requested that in view of the Written Submissions filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A supported by the case laws, the addition of Rs. 70 lacs mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee company under any circumstances which is clear from the plain reading of the answer to Question No. 22 in which he has not surrendered the impugned amount in the hands of the assessee company. He stated that the said statement is quite vague. Furthermore, he stated that Sh. Ajay Singhal is not the sole authority to state anything on behalf of the assessee company. He holds 3.99% shareholding. In view of the above, he requested that the addition made on the basis of statement recorded u/s. 133A is not justified at all and hence, needs to be deleted. 7. On the contrary, Sh. T. Vasanthan, Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the order of the authorities below and stated that the same may be upheld and the appeal of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er authorities merely on the basis of statement recorded during survey and thereafter, without bringing any corroborative material on record is devoid any merits." We also find force in the assessee's counsel contention that in view of the CBDT's Letter issued vide F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv.) dated 10th March, 2003 the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not sustainable in the eyes of law. For the sake of clarity we are reproducing the contents of the CBDT's letter dated 10.3.2003 as under:- "F.No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) Government of India, Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs, Department of Revenue Central Board of Direct Taxes, Room No. 254, North Block, New Delhi, the 10th march, 2003 To Al....