TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 1041X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and copy of accounts. It is submitted that it be so held now and the additions made be deleted. 2. The learned CIT(A)erred in law and on facts in concluding that the loans obtained by the appellant are bogus relying solely on the statement of third party Mr.Ram Dinesh Sharma, which has o connection with the appellant and that too on the basis of a dumb document found during the course of survey u/s.133A on the said party namely, Mr.Ram Dinesh Sharma. Your appellant submits that such paper does not have evidential value nor does it in any way relates to the appellant and hence additions made by relying on such statements and papers deserve to be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the authorized representative of the appellant and that of Mr.Ram Dinesh Sharma are the same and that because the depositors were not produced before the learned A.O. appellant failed to prove the genuineness of loans. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in spite of the request by the appellant the learend A.O. did nto issue summons to the depositors for their appearance before him and since the appellant had discharged the primary onus that lay on him re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med that the assessee had not attended to cross-examine Shri Sharma although a particular date was granted. It has also been informed by the AO in the said Remand Report that the addition was made on the basis of the statement of Mr.Sharma as well as on the basis of a page bearing No.47 of Annexure-B/10, seized during the course of survey which was as under:- Amit textiles 1. Subodh ent 350 04/11/06 2. do- 200 24/11/06 3. Naresh Tr.Co. 200 29/01/07 3.1. The vehement objection of the assessee was that the said statement of Shri Ramdinesh Sharma had no link with the case of the assessee. Further, it was informed that the assessee has furnished the requisite information, such as, Bank statement, details of cheque issued, interest account with TDS certificate, addresses with confirmation, PAN with income-tax returns, etc. It was argued before ld.CIT(A) that the assessee had discharged the primary onus and the AO was at liberty to call those parties for exam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax at source as also placed on record. The Ld.AR has also explained the entry which was found recorded in the seized material, contents already reproduced supra. It was explained that nothing adverse was found recorded in the said seized material. The assessee has also disclosed that very amount and there was no discrepancy. He has also objected the allegation of the Revenue Department about the opportunity for cross-examination dated 20/08/2010 granted to the assessee. Ld.AR has drawn our attention on a letter dated 8/10/2010 addressed to the ld.CIT(A) through which it was informed that on 20/08/2010 Mr.Sharma did not appear before the AO, hence there was no question of the assessee s appearing before the AO. Ld.AR has thus pleaded that merely on the basis of a statement the impugned addition was made although the assessee had complied the requisite conditions of section 68 of IT Act. Reliance was placed on the decision(s) of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-Orissa vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt.Ltd. (158 ITR 78)[SC], Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT (280 ITR 512)[Guj.] and Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Rohini Builders ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersonal appearance, therefore, in the alternative, it was pleaded to the AO to issue summons directly to those parties for their personal appearance. Due to these facts, the assessee s foremost argument is that the primary onus as prescribed under law had been discharged. Upto this extent, we are also with the argument of the assessee, hence we hereby hold that the reliance placed by ld.AR aptly apply on the issue in hand. 6.1. The main reason for the impugned addition was a statement recorded under survey of one Mr.Sharma. The survey was not conducted on the assessee but the said survey was conducted in some other cases. In that proceeding, the allegation of the Revenue Department was that a statement of one Mr.Sharma was recorded who had stated that the accommodation entries were given to the assessee in the form of unsecured loans. Now the question is that whether that statement was sufficient to invoke the provisions of section 68 of IT Act. First of all, we want to mention that in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons(supra), it was made clear that a statement elicited during the survey operation had no evidentiary value. Secondly, we have also noted that there was no cogent re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
