TMI Blog2018 (3) TMI 1731X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the course of search which is used against assessee. Therefore, the material which was collected at the back of assessee and used against the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee, cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. Thus in the absence of any further enquiry on the documents filed by assessee and in the absence for any confrontation of adverse material to the assessee, no addition could be made in the hands of the assessee - decided in favour of assessee. - ITA.No.4762/Del./2018 - - - Dated:- 1-3-2018 - Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Rohit Goel, C.A. For the Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R. ORDER This appeal by assessee has been directed agonist the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi, Dated 31st May 2018, for the assessment year 2009-2010. 2. I have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the Assessee did not press Ground Nos.2 and 3 of the appeal. The same are dismissed as not pressed. On the remaining grounds assessee challenged the reopening of assessment under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 131 of the Income Tax Act at the address given by the assessee. However, the Inspector reported that no such company is available at the given address. The assessee has provided another address. The A.O. issued summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act which was served upon the Investor-company. In response to the summons under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, no Director of the Investor appeared. However, Shri Rajinder Kumar, Accountant, of the Investor-company attended the proceedings who was authorised by the Director of the Investor-company to appear before A.O. whose statement was recorded by the A.O. The A.O, however, noted that Shri Rajinder Kumar stated that he has no idea about the transaction or investment made because he has joined the service of the Investor-Company only in 2010. The assessee was asked to prove the creditworthiness of the Investor and genuineness of the transaction and also directed to produce books of account and related documents. The assessee explained before the A.O. that amount in question was received through banking channel, through cheque and assessee entered into the genuine transaction. However, the Director did not appear before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but, the A.O. did not make any enquiry and recorded the reasons only on 15th March, 2016. Therefore, initiation of reassessment proceedings is illegal. He has submitted that assessee filed an affidavit of Director of the Investor Company (PB-3). PB-4 is copy of the ITR of Investor Company. PB 5 to 20 is balance-sheet of the Investor Company showing the net worth of the Investor Company at ₹ 1.92 crores. PB-21 is bank statement of the Investor company in which it was having sufficient funds to make investment in assessee-company and no cash have been deposited. PB-29 is details of Directors of the Investor company in which 03 Directors have been shown in the records viz., (1) Sanvar Mal Nai (2) Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma and (3) Shri Anil Kumar Bansal. Shri SK Jain or any other person has no connection with the Investor company and nothing is established if the Investor company was controlled by SK Jain Group of cases. He has submitted that A.O. did not make any efforts to enforce the attendance of the Directors of the Investor company, despite summons under section 131 was served upon the Investor company and statement of the Accountant Shri Rajinder Kumar was recorded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to appear before the A.O. whose statement was recorded by the A.O. who has denied any knowledge of the transaction because he was employed subsequently. The A.O, thereafter, did not make any effort to summon the Director of the Investor company or to enforce his attendance. The assessee filed list of the Directors in which 03 Directors have been mentioned who are conducting business of the Investor and no evidence has been brought on record to establish if they are connected with SK Jain Group of cases. The assessee also filed RTI application seeking copies of the documents received from Investigation Wing, but, the same were denied to assessee being confidential in nature. These facts supports the explanation of Learned Counsel for the Assessee that assessee has not been provided any material collected by the Investigation Wing during the course of search from the premises of SK Jain Group of cases and no statement of any person have been provided to assessee which were recorded by Investigation Wing during the course of search which is used against assessee. Therefore, the material which was collected at the back of assessee and used against the assessee without confronting the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
