TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oath has even been retracted by director filing an affidavit and, therefore, it has no evidentiary value as the authorities below have not brought any corroborative evidence to that effect. It is settled legal position that a confession given during survey has no evidentiary value unless corroborative evidences are there. Moreover, AO has not brought on record any substantive facts and finding are based on the DIT(Inv.) report alone. In absence of any substantive finding on various evidences filed by the assessee and AO making addition as suspicious basis, we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. Thus we direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of rejection of loss. Decided in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess expenditure, computed the net income at Rs. 14,48,008/-, which was fully set off against brought forward loss. The ld. Assessing Officer in para 2 at page 2 noted that the said transactions raises suspicion about the loss claimed by the assessee, which appears to be sham and bogus. The A.O. noted that claim of the set off of the loss from trading in shares against interest income was intended to escape the tax liability as the assessee traded in shares in the script of Private Limited Companies only in the off market. Besides ld. Assessing Officer noted that information was received from Directorate of Investigation, New Delhi that M/s. Jajodia Finance Limited is an entry operator and involved in giving bogus entries for purchase and sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany acquired this loss from share trading to set off its interest income to escape tax. It is found from details submitted during the course of hearing that the entire submitted during the course of hearing that the entire trading in shares was in the script of Private Ltd. Companies which is traded off market 5.1. We also find that the ld. Assessing Officer has not conducted any inquiry/investigation into the evidences filed by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. We note that a search and seizure operation was carried on in the premises of KLJ Group and consequential survey had taken place in Kolkata in the office of M/s. Jajodia Finance Limited. The ld. Assessing Officer further noted that Shri Rajesh Kumar Su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v.) report alone. In absence of any substantive finding on various evidences filed by the assessee and Assessing Officer making addition as suspicious basis, we are unable to subscribe to the conclusion of the authorities below. The case of the assessee finds support from the High Court s decisions in the cases of Kailashben Manharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2010) 328 ITR 411 (Guj), Shree Ganesh Trading Co.-Vs.- CIT (2013)257 CTR (Jharkhand)159 and ITO-Vs.- Vijay Kumar Kesar (2010) 327 ITR 497 (Chatishgrh). Consequently we set aside the order of ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to delete the addition on account of rejection of loss. 6. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
