AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 354
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 4. On ground nos. 3 & 4, assessee challenged the addition of Rs. 35 lakhs as income from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and on ground no. 5 challenged the addition of Rs. 1,04,156/- on account of disallowance of expenses. 5. It may be noted here that earlier appeal of the assessee was dismissed for default which is restored by allowing miscellaneous application of the assessee. 6. The AO noted that as per the details filed by the assessee and as per information received from DIT(Inv.) the assessee had received following sum from the following companies on account of share application money: - i. Hopewin Admark & Consultancy Services P. Ltd. = Rs. 4,00,000/- ii. Shivam Softech Ltd. = Rs. 3,00,000/- 6.1 As pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lication money received. However, the assessee did not produce the Directors of these Companies. Further, the assessee asked for copies of the seized material/documents which were relied on and also sought an opportunity to cross-examine Shri Mukesh Gupta, Shri Rajan Jassal and Shri Surinder Pal Singh for rebuttal of the allegation that the said parties have provided accommodation entries to the assessee company. The assessee was provided with the copies of the statement recorded before DIT(Inv.) of Shri Vishal Aggarwal and Ms. Manju Aggarwal who apparently are also Directors of the Companies from whom assessee has received share application money. The assessee relied upon decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dwarkadhish Inve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of arguments, Ld. Counsel for the assessee did not point out any infirmity in the orders of the authorities below. Since, income is earned under the head "Income from Other Sources". Therefore, assessees shall have to prove that expenses have been incurred on account of earning of interest on FDR. However, no evidences have been produced by the assessee before the authorities below. Even no arguments are made before us. Therefore, ground no. 5 of appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 12. As regards, ground no. 3 and 4 of appeal on the addition of Rs. 35 lakhs u/s 68 of the Act, the assessee produced sufficient documentary evidences before the authorities below like share application form received from investors, bank statements, confi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...."9. This Court in the Judgments relied upon by the Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondents, have come to the conclusion that once the assessee has produced documentary evidence to establish the existence of such Companies, the burden would shift on the Revenue-Appellants herein to establish their case. In the present case, the Appellants are seeking to rely upon the statements recorded of two persons who have admittedly not been subjected to cross examination. In such circumstances, the question of remanding the matter for re-examination of such persons, would not at all be justified. The Assessing Officer, if he so desired, ought to have allowed the assessee to cross examine such persons in case the statements were to be relied upon in s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TR 268 held that "no adverse inference should be drawn, if shareholders failed to respond to the notice issued by the AO". 15. The AO noted in the assessment order that the DIT (Inv.) in the course of investigation in the case of Shri Mukesh Gupta, Shri Rajan Jassal and Shri Surinder Pal Singh recorded their statements. The assessee was supplied with the seized material at the fag end of the assessment proceedings and assessee sought opportunity to cross examine these persons for rebuttal of the allegation. Similarly, assessee was provided with the copies of the statement recorded by the DIT(Inv.) of Shri Vishal Agrawal and Ms. Manju Agrawal, who are apparently also Directors of the Companies from whom the assessee has received share appli....