TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 507
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....010. 2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact, the A.O. had not furnished the copy of recorded reasons on the basis which case was reopened. Therefore, A.O. has failed to follow the due process of law. This fact was raised in the grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). 2. Violation of Natural Justice: 3. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the asst order passed by the A.O. without providing a copy of the Statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi on the basis of the same the assessment was reopened and further no opportunity was granted to the Assessee for cross examination, in spite of specific request was made by the Assessee before AO as well before CIT (A). 4. The CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in relying on the assessment of another assessee without providing copy of order, nor providing statement/ information/ opportunity for cross examination of the said alleged party. Hence the principle of natural justice is violated at time of assessment as well as before appellate authority. III. Addition of Rs. 1,13,76,6361- as undisclosed income: 5. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,13,76,63....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3(3) original section 147 on 24.03.2014. The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment order made the addition of Rs. 1,13,76,636/- in the income of assessee as undisclosed income and addition of Rs. 5,68,382/- on account of commission @ 5% paid on the alleged accommodation entries. On appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the re-opening as well as both the addition made by Assessing Officer were upheld. Thus, further aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the present appeal is filed before us. 3. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representative (AR) for the assessee and ld. Departmental Representative (DR) for the Revenue and perused the material available on record. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee made the statement that he is not pressing ground no. 1 & 2. The ld. DR for the Revenue has no objection on the statement of ld. AR of the assessee. Thus, considering the contention of both the parties, ground no. 1 & 2 are dismissed. 4. Ground No. 3&4 relates to Violation of Natural Justice, Ground No.5 &6 relates to addition of Rs. 11,37,63,636/- on account of undisclosed income on account of bogus share transaction and Ground No.7 relates to addition on account ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sept. 2011. 1-5 2. Mukesh R Marolia vis. ACIT (2006) 6 SOT 247(Mum) 6-17 3. Hon'ble Bombay High Court Judgement CIT vs. Sharda Credit P. Ltd. ITA No. 3090 of 2009, dated 12th Sept. 201l. 18 4. Dy. CIT vs. Sharda Credit P. Ltd. IT AT order dated 9/2/2009 19-23 5. Hon. Bombay High Court Order dt 5/1/2012 ITA NO (L): 1739 of2010 in case of Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal. 24 6. Shri Ravindra Kumar Toshniwal. ITAT order dt 24/2/2010 25-31 7. Mayur Shah Mumbai ITAT ITA No. 2390/M/2013 order dt 10/7/2013 32-36 8. ITO vs. Rasila N. Gada & others Mumbai ITAT order dated 8-8-2012. 37-47 9. CIT v/s. Harakchand Gada, Bombay High court dated 16th March 2015 48-50 10. CIT v/s. Kesar Gada, Bombay High court dated 21^st March 2015 51-54 11. CIT v/s. Kasturben Gada Bombay High court dated 21^st March 2015 55-58 12. Arvind Asmal Mehta v/s ITO, Mumbai ITAT, ITA No2799/M/2015, order dt 29/02/2016 59-67 13. Shri Kamlesh Mundra v/s ITO, Mumbai, ITA No : 6248/M/2012, order dt 04/03/2016 68-79 14. Sudhanshu S P....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- and eligible for rebate under section 88E of the Act. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by the AO holding that during the course of search from the seized computer data, list of beneficiary was taken and the assessee is reported to one of the beneficiary and the assessee has availed final accommodation entries of Rs. 1,13,76,363/-. The Assessing Officer, thus, made the addition of Rs. 1,13,76,636/- and further added commission payment @ 5% on such unexplained money. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer holding that transaction made with Alliance Intermediary and Network Pvt. Ltd. (group concerned of Mukesh Choksi) were found to be bogus by the Investigation Wing of the Income-tax Department and that the assessee has not been able to furnish report under section 10DB in support of Security Transaction Tax. The addition on commission payment was also sustained holding that there cannot be any doubt that assessee can get any entry from any other business entity without any payment of commission of money. 7. We have seen that neither the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) made any comment on the various documentary evidences furnished by assesse....