TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 65
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Aerens group at various residential and business premises. In response to notices u/s 153A, the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income at Rs. 8,64,811/-. During the course of search, it was found that the company has shown receipt of Rs. 4.85 crores as share capital and share premium in F.Y. 2005-06 relevant for the impugned assessment year. The AO asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and credit worthiness of the parties. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs. 4.85 crores to the total income of the assessee and determined the total income at Rs. 4,93,64,811/-. In appeal, the ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the AO. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:- "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT(A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (2017) 88 taxmann.com 189 (All); (iv) Prem Castings (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT 2018-TIOL274-SC-IT; (v) CIT vs. MAF Academy (P) Ltd., 361 ITR 258 (Del); (vi) CIT vs. Navodaya Castle Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 306 (Del); (vii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 255 (SC); (viii) Konark Structural Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 90 taxmann.com 56 (Bom); (ix) Pratham Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018-TIOL-1983-HCMUM- IT; (x) JJ Development Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018-TIOL-395-SC-IT); (xi) DRB Exports (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (2018) 93 taxmann.com 490 (Cal); (xii) CIT vs. Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., 30 taxmann.com 292; (xiii) CIT vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd., 18 taxmnn.com 217; (xiv) CIT vs. Ultra Modern Exports (P) Ltd., 40 taxmann.com 458; (xv) CIT vs. Frostair (P) Ltd., 26 taxmann.com 11; (xvi) CIT vs. NR Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 42 taxmann.com 339 (Del); (xvii) CIT vs. Empire Builtech (P) Ltd., 366 ITR 110; (xviii)CIT vs. Focus Exports (P) Ltd., 51 taxmann.com 46 (Del); (xix) PCIT vs. Bikram Singh (2017) 85 taxmann.com 104 (Del); (xx) Rick Lunsford Trade & Investment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2016) 385 ITR 399 (Cal); ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 25,94,50,000/- under section 68 of the Act and treating advance received against property as unexplained credit arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that all the evidences relevant to the above matter were furnished. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the disallowance of loss of Rs. 35,94,413/- claimed by the appellant in income tax return. The disallowance were made arbitrarily and ad on hoc basis. Moreover, no incriminating documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sum Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 2010-11 2,00,00,000 4. -do- M/s Everest Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. 2007-08 7,19,50,000 Total 49,97,47,500 12. He referred to the statement of Mr. Deepak Patwari, Mr. Amit Kumar Dhandhaniya and Mr. Jai Dev Dukaniya who are the entry operators of the companies from whom the assessee has received advance and issued show cause notice to the assessee to explain as to why the bogus advance received should not be added to the total income of the assessee. The request of the assessee to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded and utilized against the assessee was rejected by the AO on the ground that all these companies were investors of the assessee company and the persons concerned are directly related to the assessee company and instead of requesting the Department for crossexamination, the assessee could have produced the directors of the above mentioned bogus companies in its support which it has failed to do. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the AO made addition of Rs. 25,94,50,000/- to the total income of the assessee for A.Y.2008-09. Similarly, for A.Y. 2010-11, the AO made addition of R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the assessee that despite the request made by the assessee to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded and which is the basis for making the addition, the same was not granted. Further, there was no proper representation before the CIT(A) for which he also could not appreciate the facts properly and, therefore, the assessee should be given an opportunity to substantiate its case. We find some merit in the above arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that there was no proper representation before the CIT(A). A perusal of pages 18 to 25 of the impugned order reveals that the ld. CIT(A) has discussed about the non-appearance of the assessee before him and referred to various case laws to the effect that where an assessee does not appear the appeal should be dismissed. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to restore the issues to the file of the AO with a direction to give one final opportunity to the assessees to substantiate its case to the satisfaction of the AO by producing the directors of the above companies who have given advances to the assessee for purchase of properties and substantiate....