TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 217
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the appellate order passed by CIT (Appeals) -30 New Delhi is contrary to the facts and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(Appeals) was not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs. 43,25,382/-made by the AO by estimating the GP @ 20% as against the GP @ 16.65% declared by the appellant on certain purchases by holding that the same are bogus purchases taken by appellant company from entities controlled and managed by Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta who in survey action on him had admitted that he is an accommodation entry provider. 2.1 The CIT-Appeals failed to consider the submission of the appellant that the addition is not sustainabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2.7 That the addition is not sustainable as before making addition by estimating higher profit the AO had not rejected the books of the accounts of the appellant company. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT-Appeals was not justified in making an enhancement of Rs. 23,20,782/- @3.35% on Rs. 6,92,77,085/- by holding that the AO had wrongly taken the amount of bogus bills of Rs. 12,91,15,901/- instead of Rs. 19,83,92,985/-." 3. Brief facts of the case are that, a search and seizure action has been carried out on the assessee on 20.04.2017 along with other group entities. Pursuant to the search action, an assessment order came to be passed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for sh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l also submitted that the ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that as against the purchases, the assessee company had made corresponding sales which has not been objected by the AO in the assessment order. Further submitted the books of account of the assessee company have not been rejected before estimating the GP in the hands of the assessee. Thus, ld. AR sought for allowing the Appeal. 6. Per contra, Ld. DR submitted that Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta has categorically admitted that he used to operate and control various paper companies which are engaged in providing accommodation entries of bogus purchases and sales of various beneficiaries. The ld. DR further submitted that the purchases made by the assessee company from M/s Kalki Trading and M/s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tement of third party without providing the opportunities of cross-examination of the same. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timbers Industries Vs. CCE (supra) held as under: "According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judicating 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 witnesses was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause. We, thus, ....