WAVES DATA MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 26, DELHI, DELHI

“On the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi- 25 Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act is bad both in the eyes of the law and on facts and thus, liable to be quashed. Rs. 4878970 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the initiation of the proceedings under Section 153C of the Act against the appellant 2 and the assessment framed under Section 153C of the Act which are in violation of the 1 statutory conditions of the Act and the procedure prescribed under the law and as such the same is bad in the eyes of the law and liable to be quashed. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order passed u/s 153C of the Act, without any incriminating material having been found during the course of search in relation to additions so made. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the proceedings initiated under Section 153C and the assessment framed under 4 Section 153C which is bad and liable to be quashed in the absence of a proper satisfaction being recorded by the AO of the searched person that the incriminating material belonging to the assessee was found during the course of the search. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment u/s 153C of the Act which was made without issuing and serving mandatory notice u/s 143(2) of the Act within the time limit prescribed under the Act thereby making the assessment order invalid and liable to be quashed. 6. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,00,000 u/s 69A of the Act alleging the amount paid to Diwakar Commercial Pvt. Ltd. as bogus transaction. (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant. 7. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,10,000 under section 69C of the Act as unexplained expenditure on account of commission at the rate of 3 percent alleged to have been paid by the assessee on the alleged unaccounted transaction paid by the assessee. (ii) That the aforesaid addition has been confirmed arbitrarily rejecting the explanation and evidences brought on record by the appellant. 8. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the assessment by placing reliance on statement of third party recorded during the course of search and as such the 2 assessment so made is bad in law and against facts of the case. (ii) That the admission made during the course of search cannot be deemed as conclusive evidence in order to make the addition without any corroborating evidence in this regard. (iii) That the Ld. AO has erred both on facts and in law in drawing adverse inference against the assessee on the basis of statement recorded without giving assessee an opportunity to cross examine the same. 9. That the appellant respectfully craves for leave to add, amend, 9 alter, omit OR substitute any of the grounds of appeal at any time before OR at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed a brief synopsis which is reproduced as under :-