9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 1075X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A), is bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of AO in making an addition of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- by treating the share application money received during the assessment year under consideration as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act. 3. That the CIT (A) was not justified in upholding the action of AO in making impugned addition and erred in not adjudicating the following specific grounds raised by the appellant:- 3.1 proper and reasonable opportunity was not provided during the course of assessment proceedings. 3.2 Copies of confirmation, ITR, Balance Sheet of all the companies who invested in share capital in the assessee company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kolkata without confronting with the findings of these inquiries to the assessee for a rebuttal and clarification. 3.9. AO has relied upon the statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal recorded by DDIT (Inv), Unit-IV(1), Kolkata without providing a copy of the said statement for rebuttal and cross-examination of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal which is against the proposition of law laid down by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 12/2017 vide order dated 01.08.2017. 3.10 AO has relied upon the financial parameters of the investing companies on the basis of field inquiries conducted by Investigation Wing, New Delhi without confronting the findings of such inquiry and providing an opportunity for rebu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2013 by Investigation Wing, New Delhi during the course of post search proceedings wherein he has completely denied giving any accommodation entry and clarified that the amount was given on account of genuine business transaction. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, and modify any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing or earlier. 3. The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity. 4. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeal and stated that no proper and reasonable opportunity was provided during the course of assessment proceedings and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon the inquiries conducted by Investigation Wing on the investing companies without providing any opportunity to the assessee for a rebuttal during the entire assessment proceedings in spite of issuing specific questionnaires dated 28.01.2014 and 13.03.2015. AO has relied upon the inquiries conducted in respect of investing companies based out of Kolkata without confronting with the findings of these inquiries to the assessee for a rebuttal and clarification. AO has further relied upon the statement of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal recorded by DDIT (Inv), Unit-IV(1), Kolkata without providing a copy of the said statement for rebuttal and cross-examination of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal which is not tenable. We further note that AO has relie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
