TMI Blog2020 (9) TMI 1009X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... king note of the corroborative evidence which is the certificate issued by the Special Judge, CBI (supra) dated 07.07.2015 showing the assessee was not proceeded against by CBI or Special Court in the case, therefore, there was no basis for the addition. We note that the AO has made the addition only on the basis of the allegation on the part of the Investigative Agency i.e. CBI investigating the LOC scam at the F.I.R. stage where assessee s name also figured and that event made the AO saddle the assessee with the addition. Now since the foundation of the addition has gone, the addition cannot be sustained. We note that the AO in the second and third round has simply reiterated the addition and there was no other material other than his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A.C. Baruah, treasury Officer, and other and dishonestly caused withdrawal of ₹ 24,24,733/- from the public exchequer against the letter of credit LOC of Rs.l,48,000/- during the period 1991-92 relevant to assessment year 1992-93 by preparing fake and false medicine bills. During the course of assessment proceeding the assessee appeared and stated that the matter is still subjudice and the assessee has been advised by his layer that he should not say anything in this connection. Considering the charge sheet filed by the CBI it is quite apparent that the assessee is involved in the LOC Scam and the assessee had - received pecuniary benefit by become a part of this his share of pecuniary benefit is thus estimated at 10% of ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee was not sent up for the trial Court and was not charged and not facing any trial in connection with the Spl Case No. 31/2004 it does not mean that the assessee was not involved to the LOC Scam . Since the assessee could not furnish/produce any evidence to prove that he as not involve in the LOC scam case the total income and tax payable thereon of the assessee is same as determined in order u/s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2003. Total income as per order u/s. 143(3) dated 28.03.2004 : RS. 2,77,790/- Revised total income : ₹ 2,77,790/- Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is before us. 6. We have heard rival submissions and gone th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee as an accused for facing the trial which fact can be evidenced if one looks at column 2, the heading reads Name and Address of accused persons not sent up for trial and the Ld. AR pointed out that underneath this column, the assessee s name Dr. Kiranmoy Roy Choudhury has been mentioned/reflected (refer copy of the offence/charge report placed at page 33 of the paper book). Thereafter, the Ld. AR drew our attention to the page no. 37 of the paper book which is the certificate of the Special Judge, CBI which is self explanatory, reads as under: Spl. Case No.31/2004 07.07.2015 C.R. is put up. Seen the prayer of the petitioner Kironmoy Roy Choudhury praying for issuing a certificate from this Court showing his non-invol ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elf which is evident from page 33 of the paper book and the judgment passed by the Court of Special Judge, CBI in this case has given the array of accused nine persons whose names are seen at page 3 also does not figure the name of assessee Dr. Kiranmoy Roy Choudhury. We have gone through the judgment and have found that the assessee was made not made an accused u/s. 313 of the Cr. P. C during the Trial by the Judge. So, as per the aforesaid discussion, we note that assessee was not even made an accused by the CBI while submitting the offence/charge under sec. 173 of the Cr. P. C. and was not convicted also by the Special Judge, CBI and also taking note of the corroborative evidence which is the certificate issued by the Special Judge, CBI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
