TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so filed before Ld. AO. Ld. AO had sought the comments of DDIT(Inv.), Kolkata on the retraction which made the submission that it was an afterthought effort. Thus, the Bench has no hesitation but to accept the observation of the coordinate bench in regard to the assessments completed u/s 153A of the Act that the retracted statement of Shri Bhagat was not reliable piece of evidence and like making addition u/s 153A the same could not have been the sole basis of reopening also. There is no error in finding of CIT(A). The grounds raised have no substance. Non-disposal of the objections of assessee against the validity of jurisdiction exercised by Ld. AO in passing the re-assessment order u/s 148 - CIT(A) seems to have not taken cognizance of the fact that specific ground was raised before him that AO had not followed the procedure for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act as Ld. CIT(A) considered to be a superfluous in the light of earlier proceedings u/s 264 of the Act. CIT(A) has appreciated the matter before him only on the merits. A discussion hereinabove has established that Ld. AO had fallen in error in exercise of jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 147/148 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,56,79,600/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash credits in the books of the assessee. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. C(T)A has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,56,79,600/- made by the AO on account of unexplained cash credits, by holding that nothing has been found during search to substantiate that the appellant has taken bogus entries and routed its fund without appreciating the fact that Sh. Brijesh Bhagat, Director of the assessee company has himself admitted twice in his statement that the assessee company is involved in providing accommodation entries. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,56,79,600/- without considering the fact that the creditworthiness of alleged creditors were not established and genuineness of the transactions were not proved. 4. That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend any/all of the grounds ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h has deleted the addition primarily on the finding that the statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat being the stand alone evidence cannot be made basis for additions. He submitted that the statement alone was the basis of reopening and be a borrowed satisfaction same could not have been relied. 7. Giving thoughtful consideration in the matter on record, it can be observed that admittedly the date of search was 07.03.2014 and assessment proceedings were initiated u/s 153A for AY 2008-09 to 2014-15. The appeal of the Revenue for AY 2008-09 and 2010-11 disposed of by consolidated order dated 09.09.2021, wherein the coordinate bench has observed in para 8 and 9 as follows: - 8. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the Id. Assessing Officer himself admitted that absolutely nothing was found during the search with regard to the alleged bogus investment and the Assessing Officer based the addition at the suggestion of DDIT (lnvestigation) and the statement of Mr. Bhagat stood an uncorroborated statement, which cannot be a basis for making any addition. He placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Anand Kumar Jain (HUF) an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ture (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal (supra), such a statement requires corroboration of some other material discovered during the search and seizure operations. It, therefore, follows that any addition contrary to this position cannot be sustained. On this score, we do not find any reason to interfere with the observations of the Id. CIT(A). 8. It can be observed from the reasons recorded by the Ld. Assessing Officer for initiating reassessment proceedings along with approval u/s 151 of the Act made available at page no. 2 to 4 of the paper book that except for mentioning the information received from the office of ADIT(Inv.), Unit-III, New Delhi on 24.03.2014, the Ld. AO had verified the ITD database, where there was no information of receipt of dividend income on an investment made and further recorded suspicion on the creditworthiness of the investors and on verification addresses were not verified so the assessment was opened on satisfaction that income chargeable to tax has escaped. 9. Assessment order of Ld. AO shows that without substantiating the material on which he had doubted the creditworthiness of the investing companies he considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the year under consideration. 10. Further, the order of Ld. AO shows that he heavenly relied on the statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat recorded u/s 131 of the Act by DDIT(Inv.). He had taken into consideration the statements of Shri Brijesh Bhagat recorded on 16.03.2016, 29.03.2016, affidavit dated 29.03.2016 and statement recorded on 30.06.2015 and which were also made part of the assessment order as exhibits. Still he preferred to rely the retracted statement to make the addition u/s 68 of the Act. 11. The Bench is of the considered opinion that Ld. AO had fallen in error in relying the retracted statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat. If at all the statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat was relevant the same should have been corroborated by some material evidences from the enquiry the Ld. AO had conducted with regard to creditworthiness of the parties. On behalf of the assessee the statement of Shri Brijesh Bhagat recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 29.03.2016 during the assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee for assessment years 2008-09 to 2013-14 has been placed on record at page no. 16 to 21 which the Ld. AO had made part of the assessment order. The same shows that Shri Bh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
