TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 1197X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt in respect of six assessees mentioned above, are against separate orders of the C.I.T.(A), Central-I, Kolkata, all dated 22.10.2010 relating to assessment 2005-06, 2006-07 and 2007-08. Since the facts of the case and grounds of appeal in all these appeals are identical and similar in nature, all the fourteen appeals are disposed of by a consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Therefore, we deal with appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos.59 and 60/Kol/2011 for assessment years 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the case of M/s.Star Trafin (P) Ltd. 2. In ITA Nos.59, 63-64, 68 and 71/Kol/2011 the following three grounds have been raised by the Revenue.: 1. That in facts and circumstances of the case Ld.CIT(A) had erred in deleting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.04.2010 and ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues placing reliance on this Tribunal s orders . Therefore, the Revenue s appeals are liable to be dismissed. 4. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue relied on the orders of the AO. 5. After hearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of materials available on record it is observed that the facts involved in all the present cases are identical to that of the one decided by this Tribunal in the case of DCIT,CC-VII, Kolkata vs M/s.Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2009/Kol/2008 dated 30.04.2010 wherein the facts mentioned by the Tribunal are as under :- 2. Brief facts of this case are that investigations were carried out by the Director ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued by the assessee being ₹ 37,68,518/- in the hands of the assessee holding that the same to be the commission income on the purported accommodation entries. The AO further added ₹ 18,40,000/- on account of cash deposited by the assessee in its bank account. 5.1. On the above facts the relevant findings of the Tribunal are as under :- 7. After bearing the rival submissions and on careful perusal of the materials available on record, we find that the major addition of ₹ 18,84,25,906/- was made by the AO on protective basis on account of the entire cheques issued from the disclosed bank accounts maintained with HDFC Bank and South Indian bank. The addition is made primarily on the view that in the original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tatement recorded by the DDIT (Inv.) without corroborative evidence. The AO has not stated the provision of the Act under which the addition has been made. The possible provision, under which the addition for unexplained investment can be made, is section 69 of the I.T. Act. We observe that the pre-condition for invoking the provisions of section 69 is that the investments in question are not recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee Since, in the instant case, all investments were recorded in the books of the assessee, there was no warrant for the AO to make additions in respect of such investments, that too, on protective basis. Therefore, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the issue no.1 raised by the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il Nageshi Pare v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1985 SC 866, the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that, the retracted confession by an accused may form the basis of conviction of that accused if it receives some general corroboration from other independent sources. However in the case under consideration no evidence has been brought on record to prove that the transaction declared in the books of the assessee is not correct. Moreover even if the retracted statement is made sole basis of addition, then also, there was no basis to make protective addition in the hand of the assessee. Hence considering above and respectfully following the order of the Hon ble ITAT in the case of M/s. Ankita Finvest Pvt. Ltd. (I.T.A. No.2009(Kol) of 2008. A.Y. 2005-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
