2020 (9) TMI 1009

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....93. The only issue is against the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,42,473/- made by the AO. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the AO in the original assessment made u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") wherein the AO made an addition by observing as under: "Income from other sources: In the case of RC-1/94-ACU CBI alleged that Dr. N. C. Maitry, Dr. R. K. Choudhury (Assessee) both Sub-divisional Officer, North Salmara and Sub-divisional officer of Abhayapuri entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr. A.C. Baruah, treasury Officer, and other and dishonestly caused withdrawal of Rs. 24,24,733/- from the public exchequer against the letter of credit LOC of Rs.l,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....decided in his favour, in part." 5. Finally the AO vide order dated 30.03.2016 has reiterated the addition by noting as under: "The assessee appeared on 10.07/2015 and submitted a certified copy from the Special Judge's Court, CBI wherein it is written as "..... that though the assessee was an FIR named accused in the Spl. Case No. 31/2004, but he has not been sent up for trial to the Court by the Investigating Agency. Also, he was not charged and not facing any trial in connection with the Spl. Case No. 31/2004....." Though it is written that the assessee was not sent up for the trial Court and was not charged and not facing any trial in connection with the Spl Case No. 31/2004 it does not mean that the assessee was not involved ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....giving effect to the Tribunal's order the AO by passing the re-assessment order on 30.03.2016 reiterated the addition which was made on 28.03.2003 (original assessment) Rs. 2,77,790/- (total income) which was again reiterated in the second round on 28.03.2004 and thus made an addition in this third round at Rs. 2,42,473/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed this action of AO. Before us, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the fact that the CBI while drawing the offence/charge report in this case has not even sent the name of assessee as an accused for facing the trial which fact can be evidenced if one looks at column 2, the heading reads "Name and Address of accused persons not sent up for trial" and the Ld. AR pointed out that underneath this colu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecial Judge, CBI, Guwahati, Assam in the case of State (CBI) Vs. Dr. M. C. Maitra &Ors in Special Case No. 31/2004, Special Case No. 2/1997 wherein it is noted that all the charge sheeted nine accused were convicted and the assessee Dr. Kiranmoy Roy Choudhury was not even mentioned/found in the list of accused person arraigned/appearing at page no. 3 of the paper book. Thus, we note from the aforesaid discussion that the assessee was not charge sheeted and sent for trial at the first place itself which is evident from page 33 of the paper book and the judgment passed by the Court of Special Judge, CBI in this case has given the array of accused nine persons whose names are seen at page 3 also does not figure the name of assessee Dr. Kiranm....