2017 (4) TMI 1364

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e u/s 69 on account of unexplained income by holding that the CIT(A) made the addition by using his conterminous power? 2. Whether the Tribunal was legally justified in deleting the addition made u/s 69 when a specific statement was made by Sh. Gajendra Porwal and the assessee failed to discharge its onus by way of evidence? 3. In this regard, the Tribunal has observed as under:- "7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. It is undisputed fact that the ld Assessing Officer has made addition in the premise of cash receipts from the assessee deposited in M/s Abhaya Investment Pvt. Ltd. Thereafter, he got accommodation entry. The ld CIT(A)....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....thus hold that in the present case there was no sufficient material/evidence on record to come to the conclusion that transactions in question are bogus. Under this background, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. For a ready reference the relevant para at pages 6 to 8 in the case of Shri Megh Raj Singh Shekhawat which is also common in the other appeals is being reproduced hereunder:- "The contention of the A/R is considered. It appears that the sole basis for the addition is statement of Sh. Gajendra Porwal recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search in his own case and his affidavit dated 1.11.2006. Based on the statement of Sh. Gajendra Porwal the AO inferred that as Sh. Gajendra Porwal w....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. However, the AO failed to give any specific finding about a particular transaction under consideration that the shares purchased by M/s. JTFSPL were subsequently transferred to the appellant or its beneficiaries. In fact the AO has not quoted any specific question and its answer given by Sh. Porwal with reference to the transaction under reference. Sh. Porwal in his statement also admitted that he provided entry for a commission received in cash but in the present case the AO has not given any finding, how much commission was received by Sh. Porwal from the appellant for this transaction. No such entry for receipt of commission was found in the case of Sh. Gajendra Porwal nor any addition or an accounted payment of commission was made by....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....paid by JTFSPL to the appellant was the appellant's money. Copies of the share certificates were also filed along with the written submission which proves that the appellant had 415000 shares of M/s. Gorbandh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. And M/s. Kamod Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd. And on sale the assessee were also transferred in the name of JTFSPL and the amount was received by account payee cheque. Thus the genuineness of the transaction is also proved. The AO made distinction of the facts of the present case with the facts of the cases relied upon by the AO. Certainly circumstantial evidences can also be used against the appellant but in the present case except the statement of 3rd party which was partially retracted, no other evidence was use....