AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1077
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 'the Act'). A search u/s 132 was thereafter conducted against Bankatesh Group, to which the assessee belongs, on 29-05-2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'first search'). In the course of search, documents belonging to the assessee were found and seized and thereafter proceedings u/s 153C were initiated against the assessee on 08-02-2013. After examining the seized material, books of accounts and documents furnished in support of the return of income, the AO completed the assessment u/s 153C/143(3) for the AY 2011-12 on 30-03-2015. Subsequent thereto, another search u/s 132 was conducted against the Bankatesh Group, on 02-03-2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'second search'). As such the assessment for AY 2011-12 completed on 30-03-2015, did not abate consequent to the second search. The AO thereafter initiated proceedings u/s 153A for AY 2011-12 on 05-11-2016 and notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued calling for details/information. The AO issued SCN dated 07-12-2017 wherein he extensively extracted the financials of the assessee for FYs 2007-08 to 2009-10 and observed that the share capital of Rs. 35.50 crores raised by the assessee in the earlier year/s and it....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a Kharchi entry provider who during the course of statement on oath has accepted to have provided accommodation entries to the assessee group as beneficiary and the MCA data of these companies by using whom the unaccounted money on the assessee group was pumped into the books of accounts of the assessee does not falsify the fact that all the directors of these companies were dummy director and controlled and managed by entry providers. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by not considering facts that the companies to whom investments (as on 31.03.2010) were sold at cost were also controlled by accommodation entry provider and the identity of these concerns were not proved and the creditworthiness has not been established as during the assessment stage all notices issued to verify the genuineness of transaction returned unserved 4. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by not considering facts that E-Mail ID which was used by the assessee to file ROC return was also used by the entry operator to file ROC return of the companies controlled by the entry operator. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) was not justified by not considering facts that the creditworthiness of the compani....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urce of investments made by way of loans & advances in AY 2011-12 remained unexplained and hence urged that order of the AO be restored. 5. Per contra the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A). He pointed out that the Ld. CIT, DR's averment that Shri Anand Sharma had admitted that the assessee company was originally controlled and managed by him through his nominees and that he had provided accommodation entries to the assessee was factually incorrect and the same was not borne out from any incriminating material found in the course of search. He took us through each of the statement of Shri Anand Sharma extracted by the AO in the assessment order to show that nowhere had he implicated the assessee or the Bankatesh Group directly or indirectly. He showed that in his statements, Shri Sharma had explained general modus operandi followed by him for providing accommodation entries but nowhere did he name either the assessee or any person belonging to Bankatesh Group or admitted that he had provided accommodation entries to the assessee. He particularly took us through Pages 15 to 29 of the assessment order to show that the Investigating Officer who had recorded statement o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO and therefore the Ld CIT (A) rightly allowed relief to the assessee. 6. The Ld. AR also took us through the billing trails extracted by the AO and submitted that in these flow charts there was not even a suggestion that any cash was deposited in any account at any point. Instead the flow charts showed that source of fund identified by the AO was in fact payments made by some well-known companies from their regular bank accounts. He submitted that the AO's conlusion that these well-known companies connived with the assessee for routing its unaccounted monies, was nothing short of a fantastic story, bordering fantasy. He submitted that though the AO passed a lengthy order he was not able to bring on record any clinching material which showed that the payments made by these well-known companies were treated to be bogus or ficticious in their respective income tax assessments, from which one may draw adverse inference against the assessee. He thus contended that even the billing trails prepared by the AO did not in any manner supported his conclusion that the monies received by the assessee from sale of investments was assessee's own undisclosed income. 7. In support of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ainable. The Ld. CIT, DR further requested that the Revenue should be granted time to furnish a factual report rebutting the contentions put forth by the Ld. AR against the merits of the additions as well as in support of their cross objections. On being permitted to do so, the Ld CIT DR furnished the AO's report dated 05-02-2020 along with supportings on 07-02-2020 which is dealt with in the subsequent paragraphs. 10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on our record by both the parties. Since the facts concerning the grounds raised in appeal and cross objections are common, they are being disposed-off together. The facts of the case have been extensively discussed both by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) but at the cost of repetition, we deem it fit to recapitulate the same for better understanding of the issues under our adjudication. The assessee a private limited company, was incorporated in 2006. In AY 2007-08 it raised equity capital of Rs. 35.55 crores. Out of the funds raised from issue of equity shares the assessee acquired shares of other bodies corporate at the cost of Rs. 35.50 crores till 31-03-2007. From the documents placed at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Chapter XIV of the Act contain special provisions for completing assessments in case of Search conducted u/s 132 or requisitions u/s 132A. These provisions can be invoked only in cases where the Incometax Department has exercised its extra ordinary powers of conducting search and seizure operations after complying with stringent pre-conditions prescribed in Section 132 of the Act. We do not deny the ld. CIT, DR's contention that once a search u/s 132 is conducted against a person then irrespective whether any incriminating material is found, the AO is required proceed against such person for completing the assessments u/s 153A of the Act for the specified six assessment years. To this extent, there is no quarrel. However we find that Section 153A itself creates the differentiation amongst specified six assessment years depending whether prior to search, the proceedings are abated or not. We note that the relevant section itself clarifies that where an assessment was already completed against an assessee and any appeals or further proceedings are pending then such appeals or other proceedings do not abate. We therefore find that merely because an assessee is subjected to search....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the Ld AOs as a fresh exercise. The Ld AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The Ld AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". Although Section 153A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the Ld AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the ab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs M/s Salasar Stock Broking Ltd in G.A.No. 1929 of 2016 ITAT No. 264 of 2016 dated 24.8.2016 endorsed the aforesaid view of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kabul Chawla's case. It also placed reliance on its own decision in the case of CIT vs Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd reported in (2016) 73 taxmann.com 149 (Cal HC) and held as follows: "Subject matter of challenge is a judgement and order dated 18th December, 2015 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed an appeal preferred by the Revenue registered as ITA No.1775/Kol/2012 and allowed a cross-objection registered as CO-30/Kol/2013 both pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06. The learned Tribunal was of the opinion that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act to reopen the concluded cases when the search and seizure did not disclose any incriminating material. In taking the aforesaid view, the learned Tribunal relied upon a judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT[A] vs. Kabul Chawla in ITA No.707/2014 dated 28th August, 2014. The aggrieved Revenue has come up in appeal. Mr. Bagaria, learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of any incriminating material found in relation to all six assessment years, the AO was justified in initiating assessment proceedings u/s 153A for all the six years. On these facts the Hon'ble High Court observed that there was no prohibition or embargo on the Department to collect information and evidence for each and every year for the six previous years in order to initiate proceedings under section 153A of the Act. Answering this question is favour of the Revenue, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court upheld the initiation of proceedings u/s 153A for all six years but remitted the matters back to the file of the AO for framing fresh assessments considering the evidences and statements gathered in the course of search. In the present case the Ld. CIT(A) has nowhere held that the initiation of proceeding u/s 153A for the AY 2011/12 was invalid. He deleted the addition in view of the fact that no worthwhile material or evidence was found and seized in the course of search or was brought on record by the AO which could persuade him to uphold the AO's order. From the order impugned in the appeal we note that nowhere in the assessment order, AO was able to point out that any particular i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt was held to justifiable in the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act. In the present case no incriminating material was found from the assessee nor any person belonging to Bankatesh Group had admitted in his statement any undisclosed income with reference to any material or evidence found in the course of search. On these facts therefore the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court has no application. (D) In the case of CIT vs S. Ajit Kumar, which is reported in 404 ITR 526, along with the search u/s 132 against the assessee, simultaneous survey proceedings were conducted against the assessee's contractor and the interior decorator who had constructed the assessee's house. In the statements recorded u/s 133A, these connected persons had admitted of receiving payments in cash which were not found recorded in the books of the assessee. On these facts and evidences the question arose whether any addition was permissible while framing the assessee for the block period. Although the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the addition made, it also held that, 'It is a cardinal principle of law that in order to add any income in the block assessment, evidence of such must be found in the course....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal the Hon'ble High Court reiterated the settled legal position that unless there is incriminating material qua each of the AYs in which additions are sought to be made, pursuant to search and seizure operation, the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 153A of the Act would be vitiated in law. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the Hon'ble High Court observed that the director of the assessee had admitted undisclosed income only in relation to the year in which search was conducted and no income was admitted in relation to any of the earlier six years. It further observed that no incriminating material was found from the assessee's premises which could justify the additions made u/s 68 of the Act. As regards the statement of Mr. T, the Hon'ble High Court noted that that not only the assessee had denied not knowing the said person but even the Revenue never afforded the opportunity of his cross examination to the assessee. It was further observed that Mr. T had also subsequently retracted his statement. For the reasons aforesaid, the Hon'ble High Court held that the statement of Mr. T could not be considered to be incriminating evidence justifying the inference against ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1 were seized by the Investigating Authorities. After going through the contents of these documents, and also the summary chart placed at Pages 345 to 350 of the paper book explaining the contents of the seized documents, it is noted that none of the material seized can be said to be incriminating in nature or which would even remotely suggest that the source of the investments made in AY 2011-12 remained unexplained. When this factual aspect was put to the notice of the Ld. CIT, DR, he furnished the AO's report dated 05-02-2020 along with which the AO furnished document printed from path D:/BC HD1/BANKTESH GR_57_Burtolla St/Prakash/Balance Sheet/Majestic Party. By making reference to this document the AO claimed that all the investments were sold through journal entry and that no transactions were conducted through the banking channel which according to him proved that in reality neither the investments existed nor were they actually sold during the year. The relevant document furnished by the AO in his report is reproduced hereunder: 18. In his rebuttal the Ld. AR however submitted that the document referred in the AO's submission was part of the assessee's regular books for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re entered through bank. We therefore do not find merit in the contradictory submissions made at this stage. 19. On perusal of the document annexed to the AO's report submitted before us, we find it to be a print-out of the day book from the regular books maintained electronically by the assessee. On examination of the entries in the document, it is noted that the ledger inter alia contains journal entries passed during FY 201/11 on share investments sold to sevaral parties. The entries in the day book tallied with the sale of investments enlisted by the AO in the impugned order. The said ledger is therefore prima facie part of the regular books of the assessee having no incriminating contents whatsoever. We further note that even the Ld. CIT, DR was unable to correlate or link as to how the contents of this statement led to unearthing of unexplained investment by the AO. We also note that the investments which were sold during the relevant year and which find mention in the document D:/BC HD1/BANKTESH GR_57_Burtolla St/Prakash/Balance Sheet/Majestic Party reflected in the Investment Schedule appearing in the assessee's balance sheet as on 31-03-2010. In the assessment orders un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of affairs. Rather the evidence unearthed or found in the course of search should establish that the real transaction of the assessee was something different than what was recorded in the regular books and therefore the entries in the books did not represent true and correct state of affairs i.e. the assessee has undisclosed income/expense outside the books or that the assessee is conducting income earning activity outside the books of accounts or all the revenue earning activities are not disclosed to the tax authorities in the books regular maintained or the returns filed with the authorities from time to time etc. The nature of the evidence or information gathered during the search should be of such nature that it should not merely raise doubt or suspicion but should be of such nature which would prima facie prove that real and true nature of transaction between the parties is something different from the one recorded in the books or documents maintained in ordinary course of business. In some instances, the information, document or evidence gathered in the course of search, may raise serious doubts or suspicion in relation to transaction reflected in regular books or documents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uld be linked to the impugned additions. The Tribunal therefore, in absence of any incriminating material found in the course of search, deleted the additions made in the orders u/s 153A in the unabated assessments for AY 2011-12 & AY 2012-13. For arriving at this conclusion this Tribunal relied on the following observations of theco-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s A ONE Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT in IT(SS) A No. 91/Kol/2018. "8. In the present case, the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- by treating the share application money as unexplained cash credit under section 68 was made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment completed under section 153A of the Act on the basis of Bank account found during the course of search and since the said Bank account as well as the transactions reflected therein were duly disclosed by the assessee in its return of income originally filed for the year under consideration, we find ourselves in agreement with the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the same cannot be treated as incriminating material found during the course of search." 21. We note that similar issue also came up for consideration before the Delhi Bench ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in AY 2007-08 and deployment of the funds raised from issue of equity shares was not genuine but these represented mere accommodation entries provided by the said entry operators. Since the investments held by the assessee in shares of other bodies corporate by itself was not genuine, the AO concluded that the proceeds realized by the assessee during FY 2010-11 from sale of investments was nothing but undisclosed income of the assessee introduced in the garb of sale proceeds of shares. The Ld. CIT(A) however held that the conclusions drawn by the AO were not borne out from the facts on record. The relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard was as follows: "3. I note that in the initial part of the impugned order, the Ld. AO extensively set out the statements of Mr. Anand Sharma & Mr. Jnardhan Chowkhani, two alleged entry operators whose services were allegedly availed. According to Ld. AO the appellant was incorporated, operated & managed at the behest or at the instance of Mr. Anand Sharma who provided accommodation entries to the appellant since its inception. In his statement Mr. Sharma & Mr. Chowkhani had listed out names of several persons claimed to be funct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....from Mr. Sharma on 02.07.2013, 06.01.2014 & 06.02.2014. By Ld. AO's own admission the statements of Mr. Sharma were available with the Ld. AO since 2013 and onwards. The only conclusion one can therefore draw is that the statements of Mr. Sharma were available before the AO's predecessor who framed the assessments both for the AYs 2007-08 & 2011-12 on 30.03.2015 u/s 153C/143(3). In his statement Mr. Sharma had allegedly claimed that the companies controlled & managed by him were having registered offices at 275, B.B. Ganguly Street, Kolkata - 700 012&3, Khetra Das Lane, Kolkata - 700 012. From the information on record however I find that the registered office of the appellant was never situated at any of the two addresses. It is also noted that in his statement Mr. Sharma had identified several companies, which were allegedly controlled, managed and operated, by him but the name of the appellant did not appear in the said list. The statement of Mr. Sharma also contained list of several persons / individuals who allegedly functioned under his control, supervision & superintendence and through whom Mr. Sharma controlled& managed the affairs of the companies and/or the compa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....investments made or the sources for making investments in the shares. Even though these orders were passed much after the statements of Mr. Sharma & Mr. Chokhani were recorded, the AO's predecessor had nowhere alleged that the investments of the appellant in shares of other companies were either bogus or in the nature of accommodation entries lacking real substance. In this factual background therefore it is necessary for me to ascertain the veracity of the findings recorded by the Ld. AO in the year in which the assessee chose to transpose it investments by selling the existing investments and deploying the funds received in alternate mode or form. 6. I note that just as the Ld. AO relied on the statements of Mr. Sharma, references were made at different places of the impugned order to the statements recorded by the Investigating Officers, from Mr. J. Chokhani & Mr. Neeraj Jain. According to Ld. AO, in the statements recorded both these individuals had identified certain individuals who were controlled, managed and supervised by them. In their statements they had explained the alleged modus operandi employed by them in providing accommodation entries. I find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nswers given by the so-called entry operators to the questions posed by the concerned officers, did they admit of providing accommodation entries either to the assessee or to 'Bankatesh Group' to which the assessee belongs. We find that in none of the answers reproduced in the assessment order, any of the so-called entry operator had admitted that the subscription to the assessee's equity shares were bogus or that investments held by the assessee in other bodies corporate were not genuine. We also find that none of the persons whose statements have been extracted in the assessment order admitted of providing accommodation entries during FY 2010-11 through which the assessee's own unaccounted income was introduced in the garb of sale proceeds of investments. 25. When confronted with this factual position, even AO in his report dated 05-02-2020 placed before us, admitted that the name of the assessee had not been stated by the entry operator. The relevant extract of the AO's report is as follows: " From the above it is absolutely clear that although the name of the assessee has not been stated by the entry operator Shri Anand Sharma but his nature of business, earning com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....harma in his statements. When confronted with this finding, the AO in his report dated 05-02-2020 was unable to controvert the same. The relevant extracts of the AO's report is as follows: "The Anand Sharma has not mentioned the address of the assessee but admitted on several occasions before the DDIT(Inv) Kolkata to have controlled over 500 shell companies for providing accommodation entries..." 28. As regards the Revenue's grievance that Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the notices issued by the AO remained unserved and in that view of the matter the addition made by the AO in respect of sale proceeds of investments u/s 68 of the Act was justified, we find that the transactions in question involved receipt of proceeds on sale of investments. It was not a case where any share subscription monies were raised which may lead to an inference that the appellant would have had a continued relationship with the shareholder nor was the money received by way of loans which would result in creation of creditor-debtor relationship on long term basis. Unlike in such cases where share application monies are raised or unsecured loans are received; the appellant cannot b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Ld. AO to be appellant's income on account of being unexplained investment for the AY 2011-12. A bare perusal of the appellant's audited balance sheet as at 31.03.2010, established that as of 01.04.2010 the appellant was holding shares & securities of other bodies corporate having cost of Rs. 35,54,34,500/-. These investments were admittedly made in FY 2009-10 or earlier. In all the past assessments as well as in AY 2010-11, the AO never questioned the source for making investments in shares. The investments were accepted to be duly explained in the order for the AY 2010-11. During FY 2010-11, the appellant sold these investments& received proceedsRs. 35,54,34,500/-which were deposited in the appellant's Bank. In this factual background it is beyond comprehension as to how the investments acquired in earlier years and whose source of acquisition was accepted to be genuine was considered by the Ld. AO to be unexplained in AY 2011-12 being the year of sale. I therefore find fundamental infirmity in the Ld. AO's logic of making addition on account of unexplained investments in AY 2011-12 being the year in which the investments were transferred and not acquired." 30. Be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s drawn by the Ld. AO were far-fetched. In the first instance it has to be borne in mind that the appellant the investments in shares which were sold during the relevant year were acquired out of its own funds which were properly accounted and disclosed in its books. If one accepts theory put forth by the Ld. AO, then the answered question is what happened to the funds which originally funded share acquisition in the earlier years. The appellant during the relevant year sold the existing investments and realized the price for the same from third parties. Unlike fresh subscription received to its shares or fresh loan received which can be considered to be unexplained cash credit, the transaction in the present case involved exchange of one asset against receipt of sum equivalent. In exchange of the asset parted with, the appellant was paid its equivalent price by the third party and therefore unlike provisions of Section 68, the onus was not on the appellant to prove the source of source. By selling its existing investments the appellant merely realized the price of the asset parted with. On scrutiny of the Ld. AO's order particularly the flow chart at Pages 78 to 83, it is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nged the requisite funds for purchase of investments was entirely at the discretion of the purchasers and over which the appellant did not have any say. Irrespective whether the requisite funds were arranged by begging or borrowing, the appellant per se did not have any control or say in the matter. 10. Even if one accepts the AO's proposition that in some instances he found that there were deposits in cash in the few accounts at the end of trail of transactions even then I find that the information disclosed by the Ld. AO did not conclusively prove that the monies deposited in these accounts actually belonged to the appellant or that the cash deposits were arranged by the appellant or that money received by the appellant was in fact the same cash as was deposited in some account which did not have direct nexus with appellant's transactions. Even though in the flow charts extracted at Pages 78 to 83 of assessment order, the Ld. AO listed out names of few proprietary concerns in whose accounts the cash was allegedly deposited; I find that nowhere in the assessment order the Ld. AO was able to identify the persons to whom these proprietary concerns belonged. I also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ganpati Investment by itself had Rs. 50,00,000/- in its bank account and which was paid through account payee cheque to JCPL, it can also lead to conclusion that the sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- paid in cheque was successively transferred & received by the appellant. Merely because at the fifth layer there was deposit of cash by itself did not lead to conclusion that it was only the cash deposit which was the ultimate source. Moreover when the appellant had transferred the shares to M/s J.M. Merchants Pvt Ltd and parted with the equity shares of equivalent sum in favour of J.M. Merchants Pvt Ltd it was wholly inappropriate for the appellant to examine the source of funds from which the purchaser of the shares had raised the requisite sum. Moreover even the facts brought on record by the Ld. AO did not conclusively prove that it was only the cash deposited in the account of Shree Ganpati Investment was the actual source for the amount paid by M/s J.M. Merchants Pvt Ltd to the appellant. It is also apparent from the impugned order that no material is discussed by the Ld. AO which in any manner showed that either the Investigating Authorities or any other officer of the Department had ide....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from M/s Bridge & Building Construction Co. ('BBCC') on 29.12.2010. BBCC had in turn received Rs. 1,91,61,600/- on 28.12.2010 from M/s ABCI Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. ('ABCIPL'). ABCIPL had in turn received from PACL India Ltd in two tranches of Rs. 98,10,000/- &Rs. 98,10,000/-. According to Ld. AO the successive payments originating from M/s PACL India Ltd exceeding Rs. 200 lacs were all in the nature of accommodation entries out of which Rs. 50,00,000/- belonged to the appellant and through the process of layering the appellant's unaccounted income was laundered. In my opinion the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO is not only far-fetched but bordering almost on the fantasy. Both M/s ABCIPL & PACL India Ltd are reputed operating companies carrying on substantial business in their own right. The Ld. AO has not brought on record any material let alone cogent material which in any manner showed that either ABCIPL or PACL India Ltd were paper companies controlled by alleged entry providers. No evidence has been discussed or brought on record by the Ld. AO which in any manner proves that before the allegation of accounting of bogus billing is leveled against PACL Group or ABCI Gro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....AO was expected to bring on record some positive evidence or material in support of his conclusion, after conducting examination of therelevant parties. It is however found that the Ld. AO himself did not even examine a single person involved in the alleged process of layering or providing alleged accommodation entries but only on the basis of presumptions and theoretical chart preparations the Ld. AO came to conclusion that the amounts realized by the appellant from sale of its existing investments was unexplained investments. In my opinion the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO were substantially based on suspicion and conjectures and not based on any irrefutable and clinching evidence. 13. I find that the entire assessment substantially proceeded on the Ld. AO's suspicion that the appellant had indulged in laundering his unaccounted income during the relevant year. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Vs CIT (37 ITR 271), howsoever grave the suspicion the Ld. AO may entertain, the suspicion cannot take place of the evidence or finding. The suspicion on the Ld. AO's part can certainly prompt him to conduct enquiry & investigation but ultimate f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assets were held as on 31.03.2011. For the reasons discussed in the foregoing I therefore do not find that the conclusions drawn by the Ld. AO were legally sustainable and justified. I therefore direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs. 35,54,34,500/- made on the ground of being unexplained investment." 31. Before us, neither the Ld. CIT, DR as well as the AO were able to controvert the above findings of the Ld. CIT(A). The AO in his report dated 05-02-2020 furnished before us reiterated his findings made in the order impugned and claimed that all the companies identified in the cash and billing trail are paper/shell companies, which showed that they had no existence at all. As regards the alleged cash trails, we find that the AO himself had traced the source of the monies credited to the assessee's account. From the charts extracted at Pages 78 to 83 of assessment order, we note that the AO himself was not only able to identify the names of the payer companies but was also able to identify and establish the bank accounts of the source as well as source of source from which payments were received by the assessee. Both the source as well as the source of source was wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... cross objections of assessee are partly allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 20th March, 2020. ============= Document 1 D:\B&HD 1\BANKTESH GR_57_Burtolla St\prakash\e\Balance Sheets\Majestic party Day Book 1-Apr-2010 to 31-Mar-2011 Date Particulars 5/19/2010 Chandraghanta Traders Pvt. Ltd. Abhishek Polyplast Pvt. Ltd.-I Gulmohar Builders Pvt. Ltd.-I 5/28/2010 Bank Charges Union Bank of India 6/5/2010 Jeenmata Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. Ajay Software Pvt. Ltd.-I Aditya Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd.-I Vch Type Debit Amount Credit Amount Inwards Qty Outwards Qty Journal 7500000.00 2500000.00 5000000.00 Payment 50.00 50.00 Journal 16000000.00 11000000.00 5000000.00 1100.00 6/15/2010 Audit Fees Payable Payment Cash 6/19/2010 Chandraghant Commerce Pvt. Ltd. Ajay Software Pvt. Ltd.-I 6/22/2010 Jeenmata Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Ajay Software Pvt. Ltd.-I 1100.00 Journal 7500000.00 7500000.00 Journal. 14500000.00 7000000.00 Aditya Financial Consultants Pvt. Ltd.-I 1000000.00 Gulmohar Power & Fuel Pvt. Ltd.-I 500000.00 Arindam Sekhar Garme....