2016 (12) TMI 1422

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he has confirmed the taxability of interest income observing the same to be real income, which was Rs. 24,73,843/- and upholding the taxability of the same without appreciating that above observation of AO / CIT(A) are contradicting to each other. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that once the applicant had earned the interest income of Rs. 24,73,843/-, he would have obviously incurred expenditure on payment of salary etc. and, therefore, there was no basis for disallowing total salary expenses amounting to Rs. 23,98,000/- debited to P & L Account. 3. That the CIT(A) also erred in not allowing adjournment in the circumstance when Mr. Tarun Goyal was not available to provide the details when admittedly Tarun Goyal was looking af....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n preceding financial year 2008-09, there was no Claim of expanse under this head. ii) It has already been proved that the companies floated by SH. Taran Goyal are only paper companies & no actual business is carried out by these paper companies. Hence question of incurring expense does not arise. iii) During the assessments proceedings the appellant could not produce any evidence to substantiate this expense. During the appellate proceeding no new facts have been brought in spite of various opportunities given to the appellant. I have passed appeal order in various cases of Tarun Goyal group of companies. Sh. Tarun Goyal himself has admitted that he is providing accommodation entries through various dummy/paper companies. The p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wanted to place before the CIT(A) for which purposes time had been sought are crucial for deciding the issue and the opportunity to place them on record has been denied by the CIT(A). 4.1. Considering that these documents were not before the AO nor were they before the CIT(A) thus admittedly these would constitute fresh evidences accordingly the Ld.AR was required to show why they should be admitted without a petition under Rule 29. 4.2. The Ld.AR submitted that opportunity to place them before the CIT(A) had been sought and time as per record had been sought from the said authority. Thus it was his prayer that they may be considered for granting relief as the assessee as per record has stated that he has started doing legitimate busi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the company as per its constitution. Further, it is seen that nothing has been placed on record by the Ld.AR also to support the oral assertion. The issue needs to be addressed on facts and not as per conjectures and surmises. The Ld.AR as per record it is seen has taken two pleas; the first prayer being that legitimate business was being done by the assessee stated to be evidenced by affidavits of employees whose identity is sought to be established by PAN cards etc; and secondly as an alternate argument without prejudice that subsequently genuine business was conducted. I find that in order to address the arguments it would be necessary to first address on facts what was the stated business of the assessee company as per independent thir....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ss the incorrect assertions in an affidavit by carrying the wrong affidavits to their logical conclusion does not lay down the law that filing of false affidavits is a harmless exercise. The fact that the State may be over burdened with meeting the daily, monthly targets of their assigned task does not absolve the crime of false affidavit as the inaction by the Quasi Judicial Authorities does not protect a person found to have committed perjury from prosecution. For the purposes of the present case it may also not be out of place to state that the filing of such an affidavit is not a requirement of law as there is no such statutory requirement to do so. In strict terms, it may not constitute an evidence. The affidavit is only in substitutio....