2021 (8) TMI 1220

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessing Officer i.e. 2% of Rs. 12,11,12,443/- without correctly appreciating the facts of the case and the submission made before CIT(A). 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the allegation made by the Assessing Officer that the transactions relating to sale and purchase of shares were in the nature of accommodation entry is without any basis and any evidence and was only his hypothetical presumption. 3. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the factual observation made by the Assessing Officer that shares purchased were sold on the following day at very low rate in order to buy loss is also not correct. 4. That the CIT(A)/AO also erred in referring to decisions of Supreme Court / Punjab & Haryana High....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....other hand, submitted that Assessing Officer has invoked the rate of 2.25% based on the seized document whereas the Tribunal has applied the rate of commissioner arbitrarily without any documentary evidences. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute. The only dispute is regarding invoking of rate of commission by the Assessing Officer. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee duly admitted that it is a part of the 'Tarun Goyal Group' of the companies and this fact has not been disputed either by the Assessing Officer or by the Learned DR. The Tribunal in ITA No. 6507/2015 & Ors. (supra), after considering the statement of Tarun Goyal under section 132(4) of the Act, has restricted the rate of the commiss....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f independent evidence in support thereof. In that view of the matter we need not discuss, deleve into or decide upon the contention raised by Mr. Altaf Ahmed in this regard. Suffice it to say that the statements of the for witnesses, who have admitted receipts of the payments as shown against them in MR 71/91, can at best be proof of reliability of the entries so far they are concerned and not others. In other words, the statements of the above witnesses cannot be independent evidence under Section 34 as against the above two respondents. So far as Shri Advani is concerned Section 34 would not come in aid of the prosecution for another reason also. According to the prosecution case itself his name finds place only in one of the loose sheet....