TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entries after receipt of cash from the parties who need entries and the AO further held that, therefore, the submissions of the assessee are not acceptable in view of admission of entry providers. AO had shifted entire burden upon the assessee and no material was brought by him to prove his allegation that impugned amount actually represent undisclosed income of the assessee. Thus CIT(A) has not erred in deleting the addition - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 2027/DEL/2012 - - - Dated:- 28-11-2014 - Shri G. D. Agrawal And Shri Chandramohan Garg,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Satpal Singh, Sr. DR For the Respondent : Shri Suneel Agarwal, CA ORDER Per Chandramohan Garg, J.M. This appeal of the Revenue has been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2002- 2003. Statement of accounts duly confirmed by the party showing receipt of advances in the year 2001-02 their return in the year 2002- 03 were also filed in original The department was further requested to allow the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the Party. A copy of the statement made by the Party was also demanded from the A.O. The learned DCIT did not take any cognizance of the assessee's pleas/demands added the entire sum of ₹ 25,50,150.00 to the assessee's income. 4. Being aggrieved by the action and addition made by the AO, the assessee pre-fixed an appeal which was allowed deleting the impugned addition. Now the aggrieved revenue is before this Tribunal with the sole ground as reproduced herei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e entry providers. Hence, the same is disallowed and added to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 7. We further observe that the CIT(A) deleted the addition with following observations:- 6.4 Even on merits from the perusal of the assessment order, I find that AO has not given any material to the appellant to present the arguments and the assessment is concluded without affording an opportunity or cross examining the third party whose statement is used against the appellant. Hence, the basic principle of natural justice has not been adhered to while completing the assessment. 6.5 I also find from the records available that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious documentary evidences. The said documentary evidence contained details, which set out not only the identity of the subscribers, but also gave information, with respect to their address, as well as, PAN, Assessment particulars etc. Based on these facts, the Hon'ble Delhi Court dismissed the appeal of revenue. 6.8 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Gupta 207 CTR 115, which has also been relied upon by the Delhi ITAT in the recent judgment in the case of Babita Gupta ITA No. 2897/06, wherein it is held that in the facts of the case before us it may be seen that from the very beginning Ld AO had shifted entire burden upon the assessee and no material was brought by him to prove his allegation that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amount actually represent undisclosed income of the assessee. Ld. DR vehemently contended that the assessee was not provided due opportunity to cross examine the so-called entry providers and their statement recorded on the back of the assessee cannot be a reasonable and valid basis for making addition to the income of the assessee. At this juncture, we respectfully take guidance from the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta (supra) wherein speaking for Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court, their lordships in para 5 (at page 118) has held thus:- 5. This is where the failure of the Revenue to produce Shri Anand Prakash for cross-examination by the assessees, assumes fatal consequences. Reassessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has to provide all the answers. We find no reason why the initial burden of proof should not rest on the AO even where the assessment has gone through under s. 143(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has, therefore, arrived at the correct conclusion. 10. Under factual matrix of the case, as noted above, we reach to a logical conclusion that the present case is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta (supra). Hence, we are unable to see any ambiguity, perversity or any other valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and we uphold the same. Accordingly, sole ground of the Revenue being devoid of merits is dismissed. 11. In the result, appeal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
