TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (12) TMI 1178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vi) M/s JJF Casting Ltd. and vii) M/s Jay Nikki Industries Ltd. In all the aforesaid cases, the order of CIT (A) though separate and independent but is identical and is of even date 19.09.2017, passed by CIT (Appeals)-XXVI. 1. The brief facts of the case are that, search and seizure operation under section 132(1) of the Income Tax Act was carried out on Minda group of cases group of cases on 20.09.2013. The assessee's being part of Minda Group was also subjected to search. As such, notices u/s 153A dated 08.06.2015 of the Income Tax Act were issued to the assessee's, after which assessments were made by learned assessing officer vide order dated 30.03.2016. Here too also it is important to note that even though the assessing officer has passed separate and independent orders for all the aforesaid assessee's, but, his observations/ enquiries, findings and additions are identical in all the aforesaid cases. 2. That during the course of hearing both Assessee and Revenue agreed on the fact that, all the sixteen captioned appeals involve consideration of common issues. It was further, agreed by both the parties that M/s Jay Auto Components Ltd. (AY 2008-09 bearing ITA No. 6627/Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se of hearing of the appeal." 5. That further, the assessee company has also filed applications under Rule 27 of ITAT Rules in as many as twelve appeals. The break - up of said appeals along with ground taken in Rule 27 application is extracted below: Assessee's Appeals involving legal issues under section 153A of the Act, as the assessments were final on date of search and additions are not based on incriminating material i) M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. AY 2008-09: ITA No. 6626/Del/2017 AY 2009-10: ITA No. 6639/Del/2017 AY 2010-11: ITA No. 6628/Del/2017 AY 2011-12: ITA No. 6629/Del/2017 ii) M/s JPM Tools Ltd. AY 2010-11: ITA No. 7280/Del/2017 AY 2011-12: ITA No. 7281/Del/2017 iii) M/s Jay Auto Components Ltd. AY 2008-09: ITA No. 6627/Del/2017 AY 2009-10: ITA No. 6622/Del/2017 AY 2010-11: ITA No. 6623/Del/2017 AY 2011-12: ITA No. 6624/Del/2017 iv) M/s Jay FE Cylinder Ltd. AY 2011-12: ITA No. 6640/Del/2017 v) M/s Jay Ace Technologies Ltd. AY 2010-11: ITA No. 6638/Del/2017 Ground so raised by assessee in all the aforesaid 12 appeals by filing an applicatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Thus, all in all, 21 appeals will be covered if M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. is taken as the lead matter. As such, the chronological sequence of events with regards to the matter of M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. for AY 2008-09, is as below: Sr. No. Particulars Date i) Date of search u/s 132 of the Act 20.09.2013 ii) Date of notice u/s 153A 08.06.2015 iii) Date of filing of original return of income at NIL (the said return of income was final on the date of search) 27.09.2008 iv) Date of filing of Return of Income under section 153A of the Act at NIL 03.07.2015 iv) Assessment u/s 153A Date of order 30.03.2016 Income assessed Rs. 4,93,00,000/- v) Order of CIT(A) Date of order 26.08.2017 Findings Partly Allowed 2. It is most humbly submitted that, it is a settled position of law that the assessments under section 153A of the Act can only be made on the basis of incriminating materials unearthed/ gathered or found during the course of search with regards to the respective assessment year. That further, it is also a settled proposition that in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2, Annexure A - 1 page 50 found and seized from the premises of M/s Jay Ushin Ltd. (kindly see pages 14 to 16 of AO's order and pages 61 to 62 of CIT (A)'s order). c) Party O - 2, Annexure A - 4 page 106 which is a copy of email (kindly see page 16 to 17 of AO's order and page 62 of CIT (A)'s order). 4. With regards to the share certificates of 8 companies seized during the course of search, it is submitted that even the learned AO has not made any adverse observations with regards to the said documents, as the same cannot be said to be incriminating in nature, since the share certificates merely records the details of shares issued and allotted which are duly recorded in the books of accounts prior to the date of search. These share certificates were only the statutory records kept with the companies, to be filed before ROC and the same was kept by the Secretarial department of the companies for necessary legal compliances. Thus, here it is submitted that seizure of share certificates does not come within the definition of "incriminating material", as the transactions so referred in the said share certificates are duly recorded and forms part of the books of acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see group. The said email has no where made any reference to any accommodation entry nor to any transaction with regards to the same. That is why, even though, the learned AO has referred the said document at pages 16 and 17 of his order, however, no adverse inference has been drawn with regards to the said document while making the additions with regards to share capital. Even the learned CIT (A) at page 62 of his order, has recorded that the said email has no financial implication and as such, it is submitted that the said document cannot be termed as "incriminating in nature". 7. In view of the aforesaid submissions and judgments sited above, it is most humbly submitted that none of the documents so found and referred in the order of assessment are incriminating in nature, as additions so made by learned AO are not based on these documents. The learned AO has merely referred the said documents in the order of assessment, however, makes no adverse inference while making the additions with regards to the issue of share capital. That further and even though the learned CIT (A) has decided the legal issue against the assessee (kindly see pages 59 and 60 of the order), howev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng material", as the transactions so referred in the said share certificates are duly recorded and forms part of the books of accounts of the respective companies. This fact is also admitted by learned CIT (A) at pages 60 and 61 of the order (even though CIT (A) dismissed the assessee's appeal on legal issue, however, recorded a positive finding in favour of assessee with regards to share certificates to be not incriminating in nature). That further, reliance is placed on the order of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA Nos. 115 to 118/Del/2018, wherein, share certificates have been held to be not incriminating in nature as the details mentioned therein, are duly recorded in the books of accounts and for a document to be incriminating, it should depict some undisclosed income unearthed as a result of search. * With regards, to document seized from M/s Jay Ushin Ltd. marked as Party O - 2, Annexure A - 1, Page 50, it was most humbly submitted that a perusal of the said document, which has been extracted by learned AO at pages 14 to 16 of his order, would show that only transaction related to JPM group is with regards to receipt of unsecu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted in 280 Taxman 147. c) Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. d) Judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs Singhad Technical Education Society reported in 397 ITR 344. e) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018. f) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs Sundaram IT Parks Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5166/Del/2018. g) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Five Vision Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4460/Del/2014. h) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs M/s Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1152/2017. i) Order of ITAT Delhi M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 5580, 4409, 4410 and 5072/Del/2012. j) Order of ITAT Delhi ACIT vs Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 6569/Del/2016. 10. The learned senior counsel for the assessee further, submitted that that the said aforesaid legal argument was specifically taken before learned CIT (A), wherein, judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla reported in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to place reliance on any document/ material on record which can be termed as "incriminating" in nature, which was unearthed during the course of search. That further, out of copies of share certificates of 8 companies seized during the course of search, no addition or adverse inference was drawn in the case of 6 companies and as far as two assessee's M/s JPM Tools Ltd. and M/s Jay Nikki Industries Ltd. is concerned, the copies of share certificates are also not incriminating, as the said document only shows the details of shares issued by those companies which are duly recorded in the books of accounts and as such, the same cannot be termed as "incriminating material". The learned counsel for assessee placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi in the case of M/s ACIT vs. Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA Nos. 115 to 118/Del/2018, wherein, share certificates have been held to be not incriminating in nature as the details mentioned therein, are duly recorded in the books of accounts and for a document to be incriminating, it should depict some undisclosed income unearthed as a result of search. That further, he argued that the post search investigation or statements recorded post ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also noticed that even though the learned AO has referred the said document in the order of assessment, however, no adverse inference has been drawn even by the learned AO with regards to the said document in the entire assessment order. Similar findings have also been recorded by the learned CIT (A) at pages 60 of his order. ii) Copy of email seized and marked as Party O - 2, Annexure A - 4, Page 106, we have gone through the said document, which is extracted by AO at page 17 of his order, it is apparent that the same is only a simple email regarding discussion for future plan of restructuring and does not contain any financial transaction or have a bearing on the income of the assessee group. The said email has no where made any reference to any accommodation entry nor to any transaction with regards to the share capital. That is why, even though, the learned AO has referred the said document at page 16 and 17 of his order, however, no adverse inference has been drawn with regards to the said document while making the additions with regards to share capital. Even the learned CIT (A) at page 60 and 61 of his order, has recorded that the said email has no financial implica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... original or photocopies, the same will make no difference, as the same has not been made as basis by the AO in the impugned order of assessment. Similar view has also been taken by a coordinate bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018, wherein, following findings have been recorded, on which we draw our support: "46.1 Before deciding the issue on merit, we would first like to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search when the assessment was not pending. As mentioned earlier, the original return was filed on 30th September, 2009 declaring income at Rs. 10,27,91,857/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 10,27,91,857/-. This assessment was rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act determining the income at Rs. 7,50,21,860/-. Thus, the assessment was completed and was not pending on the date of search. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the addition is not based on any incriminating material, but, based on post-search enquiri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rs in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The 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". iv. Although Section 153 A 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 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." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess&#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quity shares, securities and commodities through recognized exchange - It filed its return of income which was accepted and an assessment order was passed - Subsequently, a search operation under section 132 was conducted upon assessee - Thereafter, a notice under section 153A was issued against assessee - During course of post search proceedings, Assessing Officer found certain evidence showing client code modification done by assessee which were not for genuine reasons - Accordingly, Assessing Officer made addition on account of client code modification to income of assesssee - He also made an addition on account of income of assessee from selling equity shares of a company held by assessee to director of assessee at much below prevailing market price - Commissioner (Appeals) and Tribunal both held that said additions were not based on any incriminating material found during search and assessment was not pending on date of search, thus, impugned additions were unjustified and same were to be deleted- It was noted that revenue had failed to disclose any incriminating material against assessee found during search - Whether, therefore, impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of this court in Continental Warehousing Corpn. (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. (referred to supra) has been followed. 6. Considering the authoritative pronouncements of this court in the above referred cases one of which is also with regard to assessment under section 143(1), the issue is no longer res integra and stands concluded in the above referred judgments. In the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018, this coordinate bench observed and held as under:- "46.1 Before deciding the issue on merit, we would first like to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153A in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search when the assessment was not pending. As mentioned earlier, the original return was filed on 30th September, 2009 declaring income at Rs. 10,27,91,857/-. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) determining the total income at Rs. 10,27,91,857/-. This assessment was rectified u/s 154 of the IT Act determining the income at Rs. 7,50,21,860/-. Thus, the assessment was completed and was not pending on the date of search. A perusal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gle document which was not disclosed by assessee prior to search proceedings and neither the judgments so relied by counsel of assessee were rebutted or contradicted by learned CIT DR. 18. In view of our observations and findings given hereinabove, we have no hesitation to hold that firstly, none of the documents mentioned in the order of assessment more specifically the copy of flowchart, email and share certificates are incriminating in nature out of which any adverse inference can be drawn as to any undisclosed income, relating to assessee-company have been unearthed during the course of search and; since, the impugned assessment year from 2008-09 to 2011-12 were not pending, as the assessment stood completed prior to the date of search, therefore, we hold that without any incriminating material, concluded assessments cannot be tinkered with and no addition can be made without there being any incriminating material for the impugned assessment year. 19. Accordingly, we hold that the additions made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope of Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 20. In view of the above discussion, we allow the application under Rule 27 so filed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is also involved and four independent appeals) again involve common issue and even the findings so recorded by learned CIT (A) and learned AO are identical in all the cases and with the consent of both the parties and also after perusing the brief files of all the assessments, we are also of the considered opinion that if any one appeal is taken up and decided it will have same bearing on the fate of other appeals, as all the appeals have identical facts and findings. It was further, agreed by both the parties that M/s Jay Auto Components Ltd. (AY 2008-09 ITA No. 6627/Del/2017) may be taken as lead matter, since the findings of both learned AO and CIT (A) are similar in all the appeals and thus, if one appeal is heard on merits, it will take care of all other appeals as well. 25. That the Ld. CIT DR Sh. Sanjay Kumar, placed heavy reliance on the order of AO and argued that the addition has been made in the instant case under section 68 on account of alleged accommodation entry taken by the assessee company in the form of share capital of a sum of Rs. 2,53,50,000/-. The Ld. CIT DR further argued that the said addition is based on the discreet and detailed enquiries being conduc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of records: "Synopsis in Brief with regards to merits of additions made in captioned assessee's in Category 1 and 2 cases 9. It is again been submitted that the appeal with regards to M/s Jay Iron & Steel Ltd. pertaining to AY 2008-09, for which legal submissions have been made earlier, could also be taken as lead matter with regards to the addition on merits, as if the said appeal is argued, it will cover all 16 appeals coming on Category 1 and 2, since investigations and findings so done by learned AO and CIT (A) are identical with respect to these 16 appeals. 10. To sum up, the findings of learned AO may be summed up in following bullet points: a) Relied on investigation wing report and also held that companies of JPM group have no great business prospects and as such, cannot command huge premium. The AO further held that the subscribing companies have meagre income as per their income tax returns and were thus, not in a position to invest in share capital of assessee JPM group (kindly see pages 2 to 14 of AO's Order). b) Notices were issued to investor companies under section 133(6) of the Act, however, the replies so submitted by them ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../ investigation held that the documents so furnished are not satisfactory. It is also submitted that no notice under section 131 of the Act was issued by learned AO even though, a specific request in this regard was made by assessee before the learned AO (kindly see pages 44 and 45 of AO's order and pages 18 of CIT (A)'s order) In this regard, it is submitted that the documents so submitted before learned AO have been tabulated at pages 16 and 17 of CIT (A)'s order, which will show that all the documents so called for by the learned AO, were supplied during the course of assessment proceedings. However, learned AO without conducting any further enquiries, rejected the aforesaid documents, and that too without rebutting the aforesaid documents merely on the basis that the income returned by the subscriber companies is very nominal. It is further submitted that the learned AO merely relied on the findings recorded in investigation wing report, and held that the subscribers are not existing at the given addresses, ignoring the fact that the assessee furnished fresh addresses to the learned, as most of the companies had been amalgamated with other companies, even after the aforesaid re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....66 to 69 of his order, on which heavy reliance is placed by the assessee company. 12. Apart from the above, reliance is placed on the following judgments with regards to exclusion of statement and not to be made a basis for addition of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal: a) [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE b) 258 ITR 317 (Del) United Electricals vs. CIT c) [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT d) IT (SS) A. No. 12/D/07 Shri RadheyShyam Bansal vs. ACIT e) IT(SS) No. 233 and 234/D/2006 dated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007] 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal h) 322 ITR 396 (Del) CIT vs Ashwani Gupta i) 295 ITR 105 (Del) CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem chand Ltd. j) 306 ITR 27 (Del) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar k) 303 ITR 95 (Del) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta l) 315 ITR 265 (Del) CIT vs. M/s Jindal Vegetables Products Limited 13. It is further submitted that the entire assessment order is merely copy and paste of o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e. He submitted that during the section 153A proceedings, assessee has submitted the complete documentary evidences with respect to the permanent account number, bank statements, audited accounts, income tax return, memorandum of articles and articles of Association, confirming the transaction as well as the resolutions, which proves the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the share applicants. He submitted that all the shareholders complied with the notices issued by the assessing officer u/s 133 (6) of the act. He therefore, submitted that all the queries raised by the assessing officer were directly replied by the shareholders. Thus, according to him, the initial onus is discharged by the assessee. He submitted that the learned assessing officer has not made any concrete enquiry with any of the shareholders, as no summon under section 131 of the Act was ever issued by the AO. He submitted that when the AO does not carry out any enquiry with respect to those shareholders and merely places reliance on investigation report, it does not reject the evidence submitted by the assessee, he does not have a right to make any addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, as assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 42, 000/- 15, 00, 000/- M/s Vandana Designs Pvt. Ltd. 1, 65, 05, 000/- 8, 00, 000/- M/s Exotica Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 1, 81, 73, 303/- 7, 00, 000/- M/s Kushal Infotech Pvt. Ltd. 4, 47, 41, 466/- 17, 00, 000/- M/s Mupnar Trexim Pvt. Ltd. 2, 62, 78, 000/- 33, 50, 000/- M/s Ranisati Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 1, 58, 89, 000/- 14, 00, 000/- M/s Festino Agro Pvt. Ltd. 3, 89, 58, 000/- 24, 00, 000/- M/s Frost Traders Pvt. Ltd. 2, 30, 68, 113/- 18, 00, 000/- M/s Trimline Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd. 2, 91, 44, 889/- 4, 00, 000/- 33. The learned counsel of the assessee further relied on the findings of CIT (A), at page 62 to 63 of the order, wherein, it has been held by learned CIT (A) that all the said documents so submitted by subscriber companies and submitted by assessee were before the learned AO and if the balance sheets of the subscriber companies, would have been minutely examined by learned AO, it would have made it clear that the said companies have high net worth to invest in shares of the assessee companies and as such, income returned cannot be the only criteria for the purposes of section 68 of the Act, more so, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the Assessing Officer is that the notices sent u/s 133 (6) were not received by the respective parties but still replies were received from all the subscriber companies. In fact, all the notices were ultimately duly complied by the parties who have sent all the requisite details as required by the Assessing Officer in his notices u/s.133(6). In fact, we have gone through the assessment order, and notice that all the subscribing companies were amalgamated with three companies and the said three companies have duly complied with all the notices so issued by AO under section 133(6) of the Act by filing necessary details. The said fact has also duly been noted by AO in his order of assessment at page 42 and 43 of the order. 38. Thus, the reason assigned by the Assessing Officer does not have much credence to dislodge the evidences filed by these parties to corroborate the assessee's explanation and the documents submitted by the assessee to prove the nature and source of credit. Regarding various observations and allegations of the Assessing Officer, the ld. counsel has given a very detailed rebuttal based on documents on record as incorporated above in the foregoing paragraphs. F....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... furnish the details of fund position in the respective balance sheets of the subscribing companies and to see the net worth of subscribers and the investments made by them in M/s Jay Auto Components Ltd. The details are being tabulated below (similar is the position in all the 16 assessee's): Subscribing Company Net Worth as per Balance Sheet (in Rs) Investment made in share capital (in Rs) M/s Festino Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 2, 83, 00, 000/- 15, 00 , 000/- M/s Eversite Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 2, 65, 84, 000/- 15, 00, 000/- M/s Gajanand Agrotech Ltd. 7, 81, 98, 000/- 15, 00, 000/- M/s Gajeshwar Sales Pvt. Ltd. 3, 88, 61, 942/- 5, 00, 000/- M/s Matribhumi Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 4, 15, 90, 000/- 5, 00, 000/- M/s Monalisa Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 3, 74, 35, 000/- 16, 00, 000/- Lambodar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 2, 96, 25, 000/- 8, 00, 000/- Bhavtarani Sales Pvt. Ltd. 3, 76, 50, 000/- 18, 00, 000/- M/s Mukul Mills Pvt. Ltd. 2, 22, 33, 000/- 18, 00, 000/- M/s Mayur Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. 3, 32, 99, 907/- 5, 00, 000/- M/s Octal Commodities Pvt. Ltd. 3, 03, 42, 000/- 15, 00, 000/- M/s Vandana Designs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 9. Having regard to these circumstances, the Court discerns no question of law, least a substantial question, having regard to the fact that the judgment in Lovely Exports (supra)was cited and applied. 10. For these reasons, there is no merit in the appeal; the same is accordingly dismissed." 42. Further, the learned AO and Ld. CIT DR have also drawn heavy support from the investigation report of the Kolkata Investigation Wing and the statement of Sh. Rajesh Agrawal. On going through the assessment order and the remand report, we find that the statement of Sh. Rajesh Agrawal was provided to the assessee at the fag end of assessment, i.e., on 11.03.2016 and immediately thereafter the assessee vide reply dated 21.03.2016 had sought for the cross examination of Sh. Rajesh Agarwal, which could not be provided to the assessee. The said issue of cross examination was also raised before ld CIT (A) vide written submission which was accepted by ld CIT (A), wherein, the matter was remanded to the file of AO, even then the learned AO failed to provide cross - examination of Sh. Rajesh Agarwal to the assessee company. Thus, after going through the record, we have no hesitati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of these two witnesses is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, as the statement of the aforesaid two w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en filed. This was not done. 9. The tribunal, examined the factual matrix and has upheld the findings recorded by the CIT( Appeals). 10. We do not think that the aforesaid findings are perverse or require any interference in exercise of our jurisdiction under Section 260A of the Act. The factual finding as recorded by the first appellate authority and the tribunal is that the payments were made by the purchasers who had booked plots/flats. While making payment, discounted price was paid by the buyers. In these circumstances, we do not think that Section 194H of the Act can be invoked. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises on the first aspect." 46. We have also noticed that the assessee apart from submitting the various documents related to receipt of share capital and share premium as listed hereinabove, also furnished the workings for share valuations using discounted cash flow method and furnished explanation for issuing shares at a premium taking into account the future growth in the business of the assessee and also considering the future prospects of the assessee business coupled with the fact entire group had a turnover of over Rs. 2500 crores ....