9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 486X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings were not initiated under proper section. 3. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the Ground of Appeal (bearing No. 2) raised by the assessee before him, through which the quashing of assessment order was sought on the ground of gross violation of principle of natural justice. 4. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1700000/- (which was made by the learned AO u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE) while blindly relying upon the prerecorded statements of Sh. Mohit Garg etc. and not allowing opportunity to cross examine the concerned persons. 5. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1700000/- (which was made by the learned AO u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE) while forming an imaginary view that the assessee must have removed the ill-gotten money from his residence prior to the search conducted by the department. 6. That on the peculiar facts of the case and in law, the addition made at Rs. 1700000/- u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE in the hands of the assessee, is liable to be deleted. 7. Tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seizure operation. He has further submitted that the section 69 A is not applicable in this case because the assessee was not maintaining the books of accounts. He has also submitted that addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement unless and until some materials corroborating the content of the statement is found during the course of search action u/s 132 of the Act. 5. The Ld. AR relying upon the following decisions :- 1. Hon'ble ITAT - Delhi Bench 'F' in DCIT vs. Yograj Arora (ITA No.24440/Del/2022- Order dated 07.11.2023) 2. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Hersh Washesher Chadha 3. Delhi High Court in Pr. CIT Vs. Pavitra Realcom Pvt. Ltd. [ITA579/2018] 4. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. Jeet Construction Company [2021] 124 taxmannn.com 527 (SC) 6. The Ld. DR relying upon the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the addition was made on the basis of the evidence. He has further submitted that Rs 500000/- was given by shri Rajeev Singh Kushwaha through Raj Kumar Sharma. 7. We have heard the rival arguments and perused the material available on record. The Ld CIT(A) has observed in his as under :- "7. Ground No.3 to 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnected with the deposit of unaccounted demonetized currency including Shri Vineet Gupta. iii. Shri Mohit Garg had admitted that in collusion with Shri Rajeev Singh Kushwaha, Shri Nitin Gupta and Shri Devendra Kumar Jha a scheme was devised to collect cash and deposit it in the bank accounts of shell entities operated and controlled by Shri Rajeev Singh Kushwaha. The funds were deposited and immediately layered through multiple RTGS with the help of Axis Bank, Kashmere Gate employees. iv. In the statement recorded u/s 131(1A) of the Act, Shri Vineet Gupta, the appellant had accepted that: * In the bank accounts of the entities controlled and operated by Shri Rajeev Singh Kushwaha huge unaccounted cash of Rs. 39.26 Crores were deposited after demonetization. * The cash were brought by Shri Mohit Garg, Shri Devendra Kumar Jha and Shri Raj Kumar Sharma. The cash were allowed to deposit between 6:30 PM to 7:15 PM, however, the normal hours of the bank are 9:30 AM to 3:30 PM. The appellant was aware that they used to count the packets in bundles (currency notes per packet were never counted), each packet bore a specific mark 'RK' belonged to these four persons and we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is not tenable. Ground raised by assessee decided accordingly. 9. On perusal of the order of the Ld CIT(A) reveals that no cash or gold was recovered from the house of the assessee. The addition was made on the assumption basis because the assessee who was working in the bank as a bank employee finished their work beyond the working hours. If the assessee has done the work beyond the working hours this may be the violation of the banking rules but on that basis the addition cannot be made assuming that the assessee has received the commission from the Rajeev Singh Kushwaha. In the case of Pr. CIT vs Pavitra Realcon Pvt Ltd ITA 579/2018 the Hon'ble Deli High Court held that in para 22 as under;- "22. Further, the position with respect to whether a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act could be a standalone basis for making assessment was clarified by this Court in the case of CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal, wherein, it was held that merely because an admission has been made by the assessee during the search operation, the same could not be used to make additions in the absence of any evidence to corroborate the same. The relevant paragraph of the said decision is extracted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
