TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 1583
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appeal-wise and each day of delay in filing the appeal should be explained by the assessee. The Assessee filed the petition for condonation of delay in filing the all cross objections, that is, CO. Nos. 70 to 74 /Kol/2016 for A.Y. 2005-06 to 200910, stating that there was delay of 498 days in filing the appeal. In all the assessment years, the assessee worked out the delay of 498 days in filing the cross objection, and stated the reasons of delay in para 6 of the petition, as follows: "6 That there is a delay of 498 days which was due to the ignorance and mistake of the accountant as after CIT(A)`s appeal order no demand left and which may kindly be condoned considering the present legal position." We are of the view that because of the mistake committed by the accountant, the assessee should not suffer. It was the mistake of the accountant for each day, because after getting the order of CIT(A), he thought that there is no demand left and the assessee company is not liable to pay any demand therefore he did not take care to remind the responsible person of the company to file the cross objection. We find it sufficient reason to delay, and therefore, we condone the delay ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. The provisions of Sec.153A neither empowers the A.O. to re-assess income of the completed assessment without having any seized material or asset to that effect nor does it allow the A.O. to review the assessment already completed. As such, the addition made in the order U/s 153A/143(3) is bad in law and need to be deleted." 2.That the Cross Objector craves leave to add, alter, amend or withdraw any grounds of cross objection before or at the time of hearing." 5. Although, in the appeals filed by the Revenue and CO. filed by the Assessee, we notice that there are a multiple grounds of appeals on merits, but at the time of hearing the main grievance of the Revenue and Assessee have been confined as follows :- The AO passed order u/s.153A, when the original assessment was not abated. Since the assessment was admittedly not pending before the AO as on date of search. Therefore, according to Cross objections of Assessee, there were no any incriminating materials found in search, hence no addition can be made. Whereas as per Revenue there were incriminating documents found during the search and additions can be made on merits. This issue relates to unabated assessment years, namel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as the original return for this year was filed 28.10.2005, u/s. 139(1) of I.T. Act, 1961 declaring total income of Rs. NIL. Then the notice u/s 143(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 issued and served upon the assessee to assess the case u/s.153A/143(3)of Income Tax Act, 1961. During the assessment proceedings various queries were made by AO, vide notice u/s. 142(1) of I.T. Act, 1961. During the course of search & seizure several books of accounts, other documentary evidences were inventoried and seized /impounded (where survey has been carried out) from various spots/places under the assessee like head office, registered office, gardens etc. Those were verified and compared with reference to the regular books of accounts of the assessee. After comparing the entries available on the seized papers and within the soft copies, different queries were raised from time to time, which were explained by the assessee in respect of its regular returned income. But, in some occasions the assessee has failed to substantiate the transactions evident from the seized materials, as AO pointed out. The assessee has explained the above mentioned cash of Rs. 3,29,174/- (found on the date of search and seizur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the persons who lead the warren Tea Group, that is, Pankaj Bagaria, Ramgopal Drolia, Pawan Kumar Goenka, Deepak Jhunjhunwala, Ram Avtar Mittal had retracted their statements recorded either U/s 132(4) or 133A or U/s 132(4) and 133A of the I.T.Act, through affidavits submitted with D.I.T. (Inv.) Kolkata within saven days of initiation of search and seizure and survey, ( in some places survey were conducted). But the said retraction was limited to the admission of providing accommodation entries through bogus biils without undertaking any real work and without supplying and material to the assessee company M/s Warren Tea Ltd. There was also denial of receiving of any commission in exchange of providing commission entries. The Warren Group is mainly engaged in the business of tea production and tea manufacturing. Besides, the group is also having other business activities like running of hotels, development of customized software and ERP systems and travel business etc. The main persons of the group are Shri vinay Kumar Goenka and Shri Vivek Goenka. The Warren Group owns 14 Tea Estates having grant area of about 11827.09 hectares mainly in the State of Assam. In the course of search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and proprietor of M/s Asia Udyog, Smt. Madhu Goenka, the proprietor of M/s Goenka Industrial Corporation; statement of Shri Anurag Jlhunjhunwala director of M/s Reliable Infratech Developers Pvt. Ltd., Shri Sanjay Jhunjhunwala director of M/s Goldburn Delcom Pvt. Ltd. and Shri Deepak Jlrunjhunwala CEO of M/s Reliable Infratech Developers Pvt. Ltd, and M/s Goldlburn Delcom Pvt. Ltd. were recorded u/s 132(4)/133A/131 of the Act on 28.01.2011 and later on. Further, in the case of Shri Vikash Kasera, proprietor of M/s Metropolitan Transport Company, though no search or survey operation was conducted but his statement was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 01.04.2011. As per the assessment order, all of above mentioned persons in their statements had confessed that they had not done any actual business transactions of rendering services, supply of goods and materials and execution of work capital in nature for/with the assessee company and that they all had provided accommodation entries to the assessee company in different assessment years. In the assessment order the AO has reproduced the statements of all the persons and in tabular form he has also given the quantum ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to get the affidavit signed from a notary. The clarification was also sought from the said persons that as why none of them had filed any FIR against the departmental personnel who really forced them to sign the statement and tortured. As per the AO, the replies of the persons were received and placed on record but none of the replies had been found satisfactory and to the point. The AO was of the opinion that non filing of any FIR to the local police station against torture and coercion to sign statement prepared with preconceived notion but filing of affidavits only with the Department to withdraw the stated part which affects adversely to the assessee company out of entire statement through a common notary creates doubt over the contention made by the assessee company. The AO has also mentioned that several show cause letters were issued to the assessee company about disallowing of the expenses on account of bogus claims and the notice u/s 131 of the Act were also issued to all the parties who were either suppliers or contractors for different works, but no one among such suppliers on contractors had turned up to comply with said notices to offer themselves to verify the genuin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t at the time of search or survey. Thus, the statements given by all the parties in the presence of witnesses on the date of search/survey may not be overruled by such an affidavit which was completely unilateral in nature. 5.8 Thereafter, the AO analyzed statements of various parties given by them in the course of search or survey u/s 132(4) or u/s 131 of the Act along with the statement of Shri Biswaiit Karmakar, Senior Manager (Finance & Accounts), Assam of the assessee company. At some places, the AO also mentioned that he conducted certain inquiries at personal level or through other officials of the department. According to him, the enquiries were conducted discreetly as the assessments in the cases of suppliers, transporters and contractors were not going on. With respect to M/s Aska Roadways Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Eastern Road Carrier Pvt. Ltd. whose one of the directors was Shri Ram Avtar Mittal, it has been mentioned by the AO that the copies of bills submitted by both the transporters had been perused by him for all the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. M/s Aska Roadways Pvt. Ltd. had raised such bills for various months of assessment years 2005-06 to 2010-11 due to engag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the claim at Rs. 26,07,100/- ( i.e. 50% of Rs. 52,14,200) and added to the total income of the assessee. Total of both the disallowances comes to Rs. 97,09,200/- ( Rs. 71,02,100 + Rs. 26,07,100). The year-wise total disallowance was being ascertained to compute the assessed income for each year on the basis of disallowance made through a common nature of order and then 40% of such composite income will be calculated to find out the central income for the purpose of income tax.Thus, the total disallowance for assessment year 200506 is being ascertained and then 40% of it will be computed to add directly with the computation of income of the assessee. This way, the 40% of the said disallowance of Rs. 97,09,200/- was at Rs. 38,83,680/- which was added by the AO in the returned income already assessed as per order passed U/s 143(3) of the Act on 18.12.2007. 6. Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who has deleted the addition made by Assessing Officer. The key findings of the order of the ld. CIT(A) are narrated below: (i) It was observed by the CIT(A) that in the course of search/survey o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. The CIT(A) further cited the following judgments: (a) In the case of Pushpa Vihar Vs. ACIT, 48 TTJ 389 (Bom), the Hon'ble Tribunal held as under: "Mere admission can not bedrock or foundation of an assessment. It is always open to the assessee who made the admission to show tthat what he admitted was not correct. Thus, it could be said that the admission made by a person is relevant in deciding the matter, but, it is not always conclusive. The person who admits a fact is at liberty to explain or clarify the circumstances and nature of statement and also correct facts. It is well settled that the effect of an alleged admission depends upon the circumstances in which it is made. Therefore, it can be said that an admission is the best evidence that revenue can rely upon and though not conclusive is decisive of the matter unless successfully withdrawn and proved erroneous." (b) In the case of Jyotichand Bhaichand Saraf & Sons (P) Ltd. reported in [2012] 26 Taxmann.com 239( Pune), it is held that admission made U/s 132(4), though important piece of evidence, is not conclusive. The assessee can retract from it s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... AO did not dispute the requirement of trucks for internal transportation and that the assessee company is required to incur such type of expenditure for the purpose of its business activities; because in the assessment order AO had mentioned that considering all aspect i.e. reality and necessity of using trucks within gardens of the assessee company in Assam, he disallowed 50% of total payment made to M/s Aska Roadways Pvt. Ltd. in each assessment year from A. Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11. The said ad-hoc disallowance had been made by him for the reason of absence of details of truck numbers and agreements and the manner in which bills were raised By Aska Roadways. The AO had also mentioned that the disallowance @ 50% was being made to keep judicious balance between the statements given by Shri Ram Avtar Mittal u/s 132(4) of the Act. In this manner, for the year under consideration, he made disallowance of Rs,46,09,600/-. The CIT (A) deleted the addition stating that AO was not justified in making ad-hoc disallowance @ 50% in respect of payment made by the assessee company to M/s Aska Roadways Pvt Ltd, because there was no material on record which may lead to the said conclusion. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....286/2/2003-IT(INV.II) Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such confessions, if not based upon credible evidence, are later retracted by the concerned assessees while filing returns of income. In these circumstances, such confessions during the course of search & seizure and survey operations do not serve any useful purpose. It is, therefore, advised that there should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income-tax Department. Similarly, while recording statement during the course of search & seizure and survey operations no attempt should be made to obtain confession as to the undisclosed income. Any action on the contrary shall be viewed adversely. Further, in respect of pending assessment proceedings also, Assessing Officers should rely upon the evidences/materials gathered during the course of search/survey operations or thereafter while framing the relevant assessment orders.  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....le with the Assessing Officer" contained in section 158BB of the IT Act, 1961 would include the materials gathered during the survey operation u/s 133A, vide CIT v. G. K. Senniappan [2006] 284 ITR 220 (Mad.); (iv).The material or information found in the course of survey proceeding could not be a basis for making any addition in the block assessment, vide decision of this court in T.C(A) No.2620 (between CIT v. S. Ajit Kumar[2008] 300ITR 152 (Mad.); (v) Finally, the word "any" used in section 133A(3)(iii) of the Act, viz., "record the statement of any person which may be useful for or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act", as already extracted above, makes it clear that the materials collected and the statement recorded during the survey u/s133A are not conclusive piece of evidence by itself. For all these reasons, particularly, when the Commissioner and the Tribunal followed the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated March 10, 2003, extracted above, for arriving at the conclusion that the materials collected and the statement obtained u/s133A would not automatically bind upon the assessee we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....earch u/s132 or requisition u/s132A. There is no reverence to any survey u/s133A. He, therefore, did not dispute the submission made by Mr. Jain that power u/s153C read with section 153A could only have been exercised in the case of a search and requisition. He, however, added that there was, in fact, a search as also a requisition. He submitted that there has been survey in addition thereto. Therefore, it cannot be said that exercise of power was bad. Admittedly, there was search as also requisition. 7.With respect to the second submission advanced by Mr. Jain, we called upon Mr. Nizamuddin in vain to show us the incriminating material, if any, found either during the search or during the requisition or even during the survey which is or may be relatable to the assessee. Mr. Nizamudding as unable to show that any such incriminating material was unearthed at any of the three stages pertaining to the assessee. 8.We are in agreement with the views expressed by the Karnataka High Court that incriminating material is a pre-requisite before power could have been exercised u/s153C read with section 153A. 9.In the case before us, the Assessing Officer has made disallowances of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts recorded during survey, there is no other relevant evidence or material to corroborate the allegations made during the statements recorded u/s.132(4) and during survey. When there is no material at all to support the impugned additions, the statements recorded u/s.132(4) and survey cannot be treated as incriminating materials in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, therefore, for Assessment Year 2005-06 and 2009-10 which were not pending on the date of search, no additions can be made without incriminating materials as held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Central-III Vs. Kabul Chawla which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in ITA no.661 of 2008 CIT Vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. Therefore, it is an unabated assessment and the settled position of law is that no addition can be made for unabated assessments without incriminating materials. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the ITA No. 707, 709 & 7013 of 2014 CIT Central-III vs. Kabul Chawla, wherein their lordships have held as under: "Summary of legal position 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse of original assessment. 9 The Hon'ble Jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in ITA No. 661 of 2008 Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. has also held as under: "We agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal that incriminating material is pre-requisite before power could have been exercised u/s 153(C) r.w Section 153(A). In the case before us, the AO has made a disallowance of the expenditure, which was held disclosed, for one reason or the other, but such disallowances made by the AO were upheld by the LD.CIT(A) but the Ld. Tribunal deleted these disallowance. We find no infirmity in the aforesaid Act of the Ld. Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed". The assessee submitted before us the following chart which gives information about the date of search and the assessments already completed before the date of search and the Assessing Officer did not find any incriminating material. Warren Tea Ltd. Statement showing relevant dates for unabated assessments (completed assessments) A.Y Date of filing return of income u/s 139(1) Date of order u/s 143(3) Time limt to issue notice u/s143(2) Date of search Remarks 2005-06 28.10....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....53/- from M/s P.M.Traders x Addition on a/c of revenue expenditure of Rs. 4,53,01,292/- from concerns controlled by Sri Pankaj Bagaria and Sri Ram Gopal Drolia 10. The ld DR for the Revenue has reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. However before us he could not point out any incriminating materials unearthed during search which could have enabled him to make additions in non-pending assessment years. 11.In the light of the aforesaid ratio laid by the Hon'ble High Courts, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court held that in the absence of any incriminating materials, the concluded assessment need to be reiterated and in the assessee's cases before us from a perusal of the above chart, it is clear that on the date of search i.e. on 27.01.2011, assessments pertaining to A.Y. 2005-06, 2006-07, 2008-09 and 2009-10 were not pending before the AO and the last date for issuance of Section 143(2) notice for scrutiny had elapsed. Therefore, it can be safely assumed that these assessments were not pending before the AO and as per the ratio laid by the Hon'ble High Court's these a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs. 1,466/- without considering the facts the assessee has hugely invested in shares during the year under consideration which has potential of earning exempt income. 5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of revenue expenditure amounting to Rs. 8,29,62,211/- without considering the facts the that the bills raised by the business entities controlled by Sri Pankaj Bagaria and Sri Ram Gopal Drolia in respect of said expenditure are bogus and companies are not functioning in real life. 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital expenditure amounting to Rs. 58,76,604/- without considering the facts the that the bills raised by the business entities controlled by Sri Pankaj Bagaria and Sri Ram Gopal Drolia in respect of said expenditure are bogus and companies are not functioning in real life. 7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)'s observation is not based on facts or documentary evidences and he also....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h. The assessment proceedings which have been completed as on the date of search u/s.132 of the Act will however continue to remain valid. Thus the former proceedings are referred to as "abated assessment proceedings" and the latter proceedings are referred to as "unabated assessment proceedings". First of all, the legal challenge by the assessee that in the abated proceedings also without incriminating material unearthed during search addition/assessment cannot be accepted for the simple reason that along with section 153A proceedings AO initiated scrutiny proceedings after issuing section 142(1) & section 143(2) notice and completed the assessment u/s 153A read with 143(3) of the Act, since there was time left with the AO on the date of search to issue 143(2) notice and on the date of search by operation of law the assessments which were pending before the AO got abated and the abated proceedings on the date of search cannot be equated with unabated proceedings. So the said grounds raised by assessee are rejected. 15. We have already mentioned the brief facts of the case qua the assessee in our above Para Nos.5.2 to 5.8 of this order. These brief facts are same in unabated and a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of organic, the assessee could not produce any requirements/indent sent/forwarded by the respective gardens to the Executive Director's office periodically. The assessee company also failed to provide any evidence of meeting held between Executive Director and Manager Agricultural to finalize any requirement of organic manures for the respective gardens and then forwarding the same to the Corporate Office at Kolkata as per the procedure explained by Shri Karmarkar in his statement. As per the AO the assessee company could not produce copy of any document placing order to M/s Asia Udyog to purchase organic manure like mustard cake or copy of any agreement or copy of Board Resolution to allow Asia Udyog to supply the organic manure. There was no entry of receipt of manure in the store registers of the gardens. As per the AO the discreet inquiry revealed that there was no office at 7102, Block - 7A, Neha Apartment, Sati Joymati Road, Guwahati as mentioned on the bills placed to assessee. Again, as per the AO, the discreet enquiry in respect of the traders/creditors of goods from where M/s Asia Udyog had shown the purchase for the items to supply to the assessee was noticed bogus ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e company. There were no corresponding purchases to supply the goods to the assessee due to such accommodation entries provided in exchange of commission. It has been mentioned by the Assessing Officer that the said confession was also confirmed by Smt. Neema Bagaria, one of the Directors of M/s Prachi Commercial Pvt. Ltd., his wife Smt. Sunita Bagaria and his mother Smt. Pushpa Bagaria, director of M/s Kalinga Commercial Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shivanr Commercial Pvt. Ltd. Again, Shri Ajay Chokhani, one of the directors of M/s Glamour Mercantile Pvt. Ltd also stated the same thing. At the same time Shri Ram Gopal Drolia, the key person of many so called suppliers and executors of works/contracts to the assessee company had also confirmed that the works and supplies got done from M/s Shree Vinayak enterprises, Prakash Chand Bagaria (HUF), Pankaj Bagaria (HUF) and M/s Shivam Commerce Pvt Ltd. etc. were not functioning in real life as such and mostly gave accommodation entries. Further, inquiry on suppliers to the business concerns of Bagaria and Drolia further proves bogus or in paper only. The facts come out due to compilation of various statements given at the time of search and survey ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....revenue expenditure of Rs. 55,24,800/- in A.Y. 2008-09, capital expenditure of Rs. 4,10,86,815/- and revenue expenditure of Rs. 3,89,40,O32/- in A.Y. 2009-10, capital expenditure of Rs. 84,28,125/- and revenue expenditure of Rs. 4,30,45,561/- in A.Y. 2010-11 and capital expenditure of Rs. 1,65,62,471/- and revenue expenditure of Rs. 2,45,14,850/- in A.Y. 2011-12. As far as the disallowance of capital expenditure in various assessment years is concerned, the AO has disallowed the depreciation on the above mentioned amounts in the respective assessment years. 21. Thus, in all the assessment years i.e. from A.Y. 2005-06 to 2011-12, the AO has made various disallowances mainly on the basis of statements of different persons recorded in the course of search and survey proceedings wherein they had stated that they had given accommodation entries to the assessee company through their various business concerns and entities. Besides, the AO also relied on some discreet enquiries and that the supplies claimed to be made by various parties to the assessee company were not supported by the entries in the store registers maintained at tea gardens. 22. Aggrieved by the various additions made b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... observed that the AO did not dispute the requirement of trucks for internal transportation and that the assessee company is required to incur such type of expenditure for the purpose of its business activities; because in the assessment order AO had mentioned that considering all aspect i.e. reality and necessity of using trucks within gardens of the assessee company in Assam, he disallowed 50% of total payment made to M/s Aska Roadways Pvt. Ltd. in each assessment year from A. Y. 2005-06 to 2010-11. The said ad-hoc disallowance had been made by him for the reason of absence of details of truck numbers and agreements and the manner in which bills were raised by Aska Roadways. The AO had also mentioned that the disallowance @ 50% was being made to keep judicious balance between the statements given By Shri Ram Avtar Mittal u/s 132(4) of the Act. In this manner, for the year under consideration, he made disallowance of Rs, 1,50,69,900/-/-. The CIT (A) deleted the addition stating that AO was not justified in making ad-hoc disallowance @ 50% in respect of payment made by the assessee company to M/s Aska Roadways Pvt Ltd, because there was no material on record which may lead to the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of the view that the ITO in estimating the expenses on transportation, did not act on any material but acted on pure guess and suspicion and hence, we confirm the order passed by ld CIT(A). 23.5 In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( on ground No.1), is dismissed. 24. Ground No. 2 raised by Revenue relates to addition on account of purchase of organic manures amounting to Rs. 2,10,37,073/- from M/s Asia Udyog. Ground No. 3 raised by Revenue relates addition on account of purchase of organic manures amounting to Rs. 1,60,55,160/- from M/s P.M.Traders. Since ground No. 2 and 3 raised by the Revenue relate to the same nature of expenses, therefore these are being adjudicated together. 24.1 The brief facts qua the issues are that the AO made the addition on account of supplies made by M/s Asia Udyog and M/s P.M. traders of organic manures. Both these concerns were controlled by Pawan Kumar Goenka. Shri Pawan Kumar Goenka in his statement recorded U/s 133A of the Act had stated that he used to provide the accommodation entries to the assessee company without making actual supplies of goods. Thereafter, within seven days said statement was retracted by Pawan Kumar Go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4 raised by the Revenue relates Section 14A disallowance. As per Revenue the Ld. CIT(A) had erred in restricting the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs. 1,466/- without considering the facts the assesse. 25.1 The brief facts qua the issue are that the assessee company has claimed exempted income and for which interest amount has been debited in the profit and Loss account. The assessee stated before the AO that it is difficult to segregate the expenses. The assessee also stated before the AO that no expenses had actually been incurred in this regard to earn exempted income. The AO rejected the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance as follows: (a) Direct Expenses Nil (b) proportionate interest Rs. 12,54,722/- (c ) 0.5% of average investment Rs. 7,43,573/- Total disallowance Rs. 19,98,295/- 25.2 The CIT(A) noted that AO has not computed the disallowance as per the judgment of jurisdictional Tribunal in REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2013) 144 ITD 141 (Kol) wherein it was held that for making disallowance U/s 14A read with Rule 8D in respect of income which is exempted and does not form part of the total income, the only investment which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no corresponding purchases to supply the goods to the assessee due to such accommodation entries provided in exchange of commission. But later on Sri Pankaj Bagaria and Sri Ram Gopal Drolia, retracted their statements within seven days of initiation of search. The AO also held that assessee did not mention these purchases in the stock register, therefore these expenses were not incurred for the purpose of business and disallowed as per the language of section 37(1) of the Act. 26.2 The ld CIT (A) held that addition made by AO based on the statement recorded by the search team, during the search would not sustain in law unless it is supported by the corroborative evidence. In the absence of corroborating evidences the statement has no evidentiary value, if retracted later on. The Apex court has observed in Pullengode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, 91 ITR 18 (SC.) that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said to be conclusive. It is open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. 26.3 The ld Counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that during the search the statements were taken by applying force....