2018 (11) TMI 1920

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1961 (in short the Act). 2. After hearing rival submissions and on a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, a perusal of papers on record and orders of the lower authorities below, as well as case law cited, we hold as follows. 3. The assessee is a company and is in the business of developing of property. It had filed its return of income on 29.09.2012 declaring nil income. The assessing officer computed income of Rs. 98,83,110/-, inter alia, making an addition of Rs. 70,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. Interest on this loan of Rs. 21,46,304/- was consequently disallowed. On appeal, the first appellate authority deleted this addition. Aggrieved the Revenue is in appeal before us on the following grounds: ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ors of the company at the time of giving of the loan. Further it was submitted that the present director Mr. Manoj Kr. Singh not only filed confirmation reiterating genuineness of the transaction, but also filed one affidavit confirming the transactions. He argued that Mr. Suresh Kejriwal's statement was neither confronted to the assessee nor an opportunity was given for cross-examination him. The Ld. CIT(A) pointed out that an addition cannot be made merely because of nonappearance of director in person, before the assessing officer and for this proposition he relied on the judgment of Hon'ble " A" Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Dalia Investment Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT I.T.A. No. 2818/Kol/2013 and 04/Kol2014 order dated 27.04.2018. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion, which the AO has failed to do so in the present case. That the said Mr. Kejriwal's statement was not provided to the appellant by the AO and, thereby, not affording an opportunity of cross examination by the appellant in tune with the concept of legal jurisprudence, tantamount to denial of natural justice. Moreover, all transactions were done through banking channels which is not a matter of dispute. (b) With regard to the declaration made by the present Director of M/s Saket Vinimay (P) Ltd in which he confirmed about the accounts of the company with that of the appellant company, I find that the AO took an adverse view solely for the reason that he was not produced before him for examination. In this respect, I find that....