TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 451X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y evidence the AO made the addition on account of commission for providing accommodation entries @ 0.15% of ₹ 2.47 crores computed at ₹ 37,12,500/- and made the addition in the case of the assessee. As find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that merely on the basis of the statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma the addition in dispute has been made in the hands of the assessee which is contrary to the various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, Hon’ble High Court and the Tribunals. Revenue Authority has not provided any statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma recorded during Survey to the assessee and no opportunity of cross examination has been given to the assessee which is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in adding a sum of ₹ 37,12,500/- in the hands of the appellant as commission income arising out of the certain undisclosed activities. 3. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the above said addition based on surmises, presumptions and conjectures. 4. That the Id. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition by incorrectly stating that the appellant did not deny the bogus transactions between VSPL and its 13 share applicant companies. 5. (a) That Id. CIT (A) has erred in law In confirming the addition purportedly on the basis of a statement by a third party. (b) That no copy of the statement of the third party was given to the appellant. (c) That no right to cross exa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 30.12.2015 dismissed the Appeal of the Assessee by upholding the assessment order passed by the AO. 4. Against the Ld. CIT(A) s order dated 30.12.2015, now the assessee is in Appeal before the Tribunal. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the Assessee stated that assessee is a Chartered Accountant and practicing as a C.A. and filed its return of income u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 electronically on 22.2.2013 declaring income of ₹ 9,07,136/- after adopting the prescribed procedure under the law. The AO assessed the total income of the assessee at an income of ₹ 46,20,140/-. He stated that the AO has made the addition on account of commission out of accommodation business activities amounting to ₹ 37,1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no opportunity of cross examination has been given to the assessee which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In support of his contention, he cited the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 1980 19 CTR (SC; 360 (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. AL Lalpuria Om 384 (Rajasthan); Shalimar Buildcon (P) Ltd. Vs. Mo (2011) 1 ITD 396 (JP); Hon ble Delhi High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhar (2007) 163 Taxman 608 (Delhi). In view of the above, he stated that the addition in dispute made by the AO and wrongly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld without any basis which deserve to be deleted. 6. On the contrary, Ld. Departm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es computed at ₹ 37,12,500/- and made the addition in the case of the assessee. I find considerable cogency in the contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee that merely on the basis of the statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma the addition in dispute has been made in the hands of the assessee which is contrary to the various decisions rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, Hon ble High Court and the Tribunals. I also find that Revenue Authority has not provided any statement of Sh. Himanshu Verma recorded during Survey to the assessee and no opportunity of cross examination has been given to the assessee which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, in view of the Hon ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Kishinchand Chellar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
