TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1372
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1)(c) on the basis that the quantum addition has been deleted?" 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) had discussed situation-1 in his order and held this addition is not justified but he having coterminous power and confirmed the addition by treating this loan as cash creditor, which has not been proved by the assessee as onus cast on him. It is also not as per law as the ld CIT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant 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 was a entry provider and the company M/s. JTFSPL was also floated by him had not worth at all, transfer of share of M/s Gorbandh Marbles Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Kamod Commercial Services Pvt. Ltd., by the appellant to M/s. JTFSPL was not genuine but a sham transaction. That M/s. JTFSPL ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y 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 the AO in the case of the appellant. The appellant company asked for cross examination of Sh. Porwal which was though admitted by the AO but as Sh. Porwal did not remain present before his own AO, the opportunity of cross examination could not be availed by the appellant. Absence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 used by the AO. Under the facts and circumstances of the case the addition made by the AO being not based on any evidence is directed to be deleted. The addition of Rs. 41,50,000/- made by the AO is therefore deleted. The 2nd ground of appeal is decided in favour of the appellant." W....