2016 (11) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....closed activities. 3. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the above said addition based on surmises, presumptions and conjectures. 4. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition by incorrectly stating that the appellant did not deny the bogus transactions between VSPL and its 13 share applicant companies. 5. (a) That Id. CIT (A) has erred in law In confirming the addition purportedly on the basis of a statement by a third party. (b) That no copy of the statement of the third party was given to the appellant. (c) That no right to cross examine the third party was given to the appellant. (d) That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the statement taken during survey does not have....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that assessee is a Chartered Accountant and practicing as a C.A. and filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 electronically on 22.2.2013 declaring income of Rs. 9,07,136/- after adopting the prescribed procedure under the law. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at an income of Rs. 46,20,140/-. He stated that the AO has made the addition on account of commission out of accommodation business activities amounting to Rs. 37,12,2500/-. He further stated that a Survey u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted on 17.10.2012 at the premises of one of the client of the assessee M/s Varrenyam Securities Pvt. Ltd. At its registered office at 244....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 1980 19 CTR (SC; 360 (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. AL Lalpuria Om 384 (Rajasthan); Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs. Mo (2011) 1 ITD 396 (JP); Hon'ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhar (2007) 163 Taxman 608 (Delhi). In view of the above, he stated that the addition in dispute made by the AO and wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld without any basis which deserve to be deleted. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Departmental Representative has relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that the same may be upheld and the appeal of the Assessee may be dismissed accordingly. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ition in dispute has been made in the hands of the assessee which is contrary to the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunals. I also find that Revenue Authority has not provided any statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma recorded during Survey to the assessee and no opportunity of cross examination has been given to the assessee which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) wherein it has been held that evidence collected at the back of the assessee has to be confronted to the assessee to give him opportunity to rebut the evidence, otherwise, same is not admissible. 8. I f....