Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA
O R D E R The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 08.03.2018 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-VII, New Delhi for the quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143/147 for the Assessment Year 2005-06. In the grounds of appeal assessee has mainly challenged addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made u/s 68; addition of Rs. 25,000/- u/s 69C; and validity of proceedings u/s 147.
The facts in brief are that Assessee company has filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2005-06 declaring income of Rs.15,14,672/- on 28.10.2005. The said return was duly accepted and processed u/s. 143(1). Later on, Assessee’s case was reopened u/s.147 and notice u/s.148 was issued on 30.03.2012. Reopening of assessment was based on information received from Investigation Wing that the Assessee has taken accommodation entries from the entry operators to the tune of Rs.10 lakh from the following entry providers:-
S. No. Name of the entry provider Amount 1. Geefcee Finance Ltd. 5,00,000/- 2. Merta Finance Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/-
In response to the notice, Assessee has raised objection vide letter dated 21.11.2012 which has been duly noted by the AO at page 2 of the impugned order. Such an objection raised by the Assessee was duly rejected by the AO as per the observations appearing from pages 2 to 4 of the assessment order. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer had issued summons u/s.131 to these entities; however none of them had appeared. Income Tax Inspector was also deputed by AO, who submitted that no such activity was carried out by these entities from the given address, except for one person, who is to sit in the office for collecting mails, etc. AO has further observed that the Assessee-company was required to submit documentary evidences of funds received on account of share application money, which as per the AO was not submitted by the Assessee and accordingly, he has made the addition of Rs.10 lac as unexplained cash credit u/s.68; and also added Rs. 25,000 u/s 69C towards alleged commission paid for getting the accommodation entry.
Aggrieved by the above additions made by the Assessing Officer, Assessee preferred an appeal before ld. CIT (A) who vide order dated 1.8.2014 dismissed the appeal. Against the said appellate order, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, wherein vide order dated 9.8.2017 in /Del/, Tribunal held that the ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated the appeal on the basis of altered grounds of appeal
. Accordingly, ld. CIT (A) was directed to pass fresh order on the basis of altered grounds filed before him. The said altered grounds which were remanded back for adjudication read as under:-
1. Notice u/s 148 issued to us by learned Assessing Officer was lacking reason to believe.
2. No material, which was against us according to learned Assessing Officer, was provided to us,
3. We strongly deny the statement of Assessing Officer of us not submitting documents desired by him.
4. Not given a chance to perform cross examination by the learned Assessing Officer.
5. We strongly deny the statement of the learned Assessing Officer of not being present on cross- examination date.
6. The learned Assessing Officer has not provided us the report of the Office Inspector through which they claimed to have visited the share purchaser company’s office.
7. The assessing order passed u/s. 143(3)/147 dated 19/3/13 is bad in law and on facts.
8.A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has grossly erred in making an addition of Rs. 10,25,000/- u/s 68 on account of share capital Rs. 10,000,00/- and commission paid thereon Rs. 25,000/- B) That the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making the above addition despite the fact that all details regarding the genuineness of investment was filed during the course of assessment proceedings.
The interest charged u/s.234-B is incorrect and requires to be deleted.
The penalty proceeding initiated u/s 271(1)(c) are bad. in law and require to be dropped”.
Before the Ld. CIT (A), Assessee submitted the Tribunal in its order has categorically noted that the search was conducted at the premises of one Shri Tarun Goel, Chartered Accountant by the Investigation Wing on 15.09.2008 and the statement of his employees were recorded, on the basis of which it was concluded that assessee was one of the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entries. The Tribunal has observed that, during the course of the entire assessment proceedings, Assessee has been categorically asking the AO to provide the material available with the Department and in absence of any material it is not possible to make any comment; and secondly, if the genuineness of the investment are doubted based on this statement of employees with whom assessee did not had any kind of contact, then they should have been confronted to the assessee, and not only that, even in their statements there is no mention of material specific either to the assessee or to the companies which have invested in the assessee company. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant observations and the findings of the Tribunal while remanding the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) reads as under:-
“10. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT (A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. I have also considered the various decisions cited before me. I find on the basis of search conducted in the premises of Mr. Tarun Goel, Chartered Accountant by the investigation Wing on 15th September, 2008 statement of Mr. Goel and his employees were recorded and the investigation Wing on the basis of such statement came to the conclusion that assessee is one of the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entries. On the basis of the report of the Investigation Wing, the AO reopened the assessment by issuing notice under section 148. I find during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had categorically asked the AO vide letter dated 13th December, 2012, the relevant part of the letter read as under: "That it is alleged, that the Department has some material on record which has a question mark of the genuineness of the investment. In the absence of any material provided to us it is humanly impossible for us to make any comment on me so called material on record as stated by the Department. Moreover, the entire observations regarding the genuineness of the investment are based on statements of employees of one Mr. Tarun Goel with whom we had not contact whatsoever. The Department is solely relying on those statements about the activities being undertaken by Mr. Tarun Goyal. There is no mention of any material/statement specific to either us or to companies. It is an established law that any assessment on the basis of reopening u/s 148 should be based on natural justice and all material available with the departmental should be presented to the assessee for its rebuttable or otherwise. ” 11 Similarly letters were addressed by the assessee to the AO dated 18th January, 2013 and 8th February, 2013. However, from the copy of the assessment order, it is not variable as to whether the AO has provided all the information that the assessee has requested for. It is submission of learned counsel for the assessee that without providing an opportunity to cross examine the employee of Mr. Tarun Goel, whose statement is the basis for making the addition, the addition cannot be sustained. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the assessee that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on the basis of the report of the investigation Wing and there is no independent application of mind by the AO. It is also his submission that since the assessee had discharged the onus case on it by furnishing all details in terms of provisions of Section 68, therefore, the burden shifts on the department and the addition sustained by the CIT (A) should be deleted.
12 A perusal of the order of the AO and the CIT(A) as well as the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee shows that the copy of statement of employee of Mr. Tarun Goel recorded under section 132(4) has not been provided o the assessee. The employee of Mr. Tarun Goel was also not offered for the cross examination. Although the assessee had requested the AO to issue summon under section 131 to the employee of Mr. Tarun Goel, however the same did not materialize because of non-appearance of the said person. I find although assessee has made elaborate submission before the CIT(A) alongwith various documents the learned CTT(A) has not properly appreciated the facts of the present case.
13. I find the assessee vide letter dated 25th June, 2014 addressed to the CTT (A) had taken the following altered grounds of appeal:
1. Notice U/S 148 issued to us by learned Assessing Officer was lacking reason to believe
2. No material, which was against us according to learned Assessing Officer, was provided to us.
3. We strongly deny the statement of Assessing Officer of us not submitting documents desired by him.
4. Not given a chance to perform cross examination b y the learned Assessing Officer.
5. We strongly deny the statement of the learned Assessing Officer of not being present on Cross-examination date. 6 . The learned Assessing Officer has not provided us the report of the Office Inspector through which they claimed to have visited the share purchaser companies' office.
7. The assessing order passed U/S 143(3)/147 dated 19/3/13 is bad in law and on facts.
8. A) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned Assessing Officer has ,grossly erred in making an addition of Rs.l0,25,000/-0 U/S 68 on account of share capital Rs.10,000,00 and commission paid thereon Rs,25,000/-. B) That the learned Assessing Officer is not justified in making the above addition despite the facts that all details regarding the genuineness of investment was filed during the course of assessment proceedings.
9. The interest charged U/S 234-B is incorrect and requires to be deleted.
10. The penalty proceeding initiated u/s. 27(1)(C ) re bad in law and require to be dropped. 14. However, I find from the order of the CIT (A) that he has not adjudicated the appeal on the basis of the altered grounds of appeal and had proceeded to adjudicate the issue on the basis of the original grounds filed before him. It is not verifiable as to whether he had accepted or rejected the altered ground of appeal. Since the learned CIT(A) not adjudicated the issue on the basis of the altered grounds of appeal, therefore, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the earned CIT(A) with the a direction to decide the issue of afresh on the basis of the altered grounds of appeal filed before him. I hold and direct accordingly. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.”
6. In the light of these directions, the assessee in its written submission filed before CIT(A) has submitted that right from the initiation of the proceedings u/s.148, the assessee all throughout has been contending before the Assessing Officer that if there is any material on record which doubts the genuineness of the investment, then same should be provided to the assessee, because sole reliance of the statement of Mr. Tarun Goyal and his employees cannot be the basis of adverse inference when there is no mention or statement specific to the assessee or relating to the companies. Again in response to the various queries raised by the AO assessee kept on reiterating to provide copy of all documents collected by the investigation wing and also to furnish the copy of the statement which the department intend to use against the Assessee.
6.1 On merits, it was submitted that both the companies from whom share application money was received, these companies were active and were in the records of MCA and were also filing their returns with ROC regularly. One of the companies was even BSE listed company whose shares were duly traded. The assessee company also rebutted the allegation of the Assessing Officer that opportunity of cross examination was allowed to the assessee. Once the foundation material was not confronted to the Assessee, then there remains no valid jurisdiction for the Assessing Officer to offer cross examination. Again before the ld. CIT (A), the assessee had filed following document to prove the genuineness of the transaction which has been incorporated in Appellate Order and for the sake of ready reference, they are reproduced herein below:
5.1 is submitted that during the instant assessment year appellant received share capital of Rs. 10,00,000/- through banking channel vide account payee cheque. The assessee has undisputedly filed, following evidences before the learned Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings in respect of each of the shareholders and, the same was also placed before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals): Name of Shareholders Amount Sr. (Rs.) No. i) 5,00,000 M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. Address: 13/34, W.E.A., IV th Floor, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005 No. of shares: 25000 PAN No. AADCM7109A Ward-Co. Cir 6(1), New Delhi D.D. No. 926621 dated 20.11.2004 Bank Name: Bank of Punjab Ltd., Karol Bagh, New Delhi Account No. 110299091 Name of Directors: i)Jitender Kumar if) Ritu Saxena Reg. No. 060802
CIN No. U74899DL1994PTC060802 Date of Incorporation: 9.8.1994 Return filed on 28.10.2004 Evidence (pages of Paper Book) i) Copy of share application form dated 20.11.2004 (48) ii) Copy of confirmation dated 1.4.2005 by M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. (49) Hi) Copy of receipt of shares dated 4.3.2005 (50) iv) Copy of board resolution dated 20.11.2004 held on 30.6.2004 by M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. (51) v) Copy of PAN No. AADCM7109A of M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. (52) vi) Copy of bank statement of M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. (53) vii) Copy of acknowledgement of return of income dated 30.10.2004 for Assessment year 2004-05 in the case of M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. (54) viii) Copy of affidavit by Shri Jitender Kumar director of M/s Merta Finance (P) Ltd. in the shape of confirmation (55) ix) List of directors (58) x) Copy of ROC Master data (59-60) xi) Copy of annual return of the appellant company (129-131) xii) Copy of statement of account alongwith dosing stock as on 31.3.2005 (132-134) xiii) Copy of bank statement of the appellant company (135) xiii Copy of memorandum and articles of association of M/s Radiance Stock Traders (P) Ltd. (136-147) M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. Address: 13/34, W.E.A., IVth Floor, Main Arya Samaj Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi - 110 005 No. of shares: 25000 PAN No. AAACG1103H Ward-12(l), New Delhi D.D. No. 52116 dated 3.1.2005 Bank Name: Bank of Punjab Ltd., Sirsaa Account No. 020D112-99044 Name of Directors: i) Tarun Goyal ii) G. R. GoyaI Reg. No. 030944 CIN No. L65910HR1990PLC030944 Date of Incorporation: 17.5.1990 Return filed on 28.10.2004 Auditors of the company: Naveen Chander Partner Navin Chander & Co. Chartered Accountants Net Worth of the company As on 31.03.2004 Share capital 10,94,42,500, Reserves & Surplus 48,62,57,065 Total Rs. 59,56,99,565 Secured loan 1,09,194 Total Rs. 59,58,08,759 Gross Block 55,028 55,028 Less: Depreciation 38,654 35,140
Net Block 16,374 19,888 Investments 18,75,92,004 14, 08,67,754 7 Current Assets 9,54,95,542 97,12,556 Loan & Advances 31,27,15,828 37, 49,90,122 40,82,11,370 45, 47,02,678 Less: Current Liabilities & Provisions: a) Current liabilities -10,989 10,989 45, 46,91,689 Net current Assets ' 40,82,00,381 Miscellaneous Exp. ... To the extent not written off or adjusted 60,251 Total Rs. 59,58,08,759 59, 56,39,582 Evidence (pages of Paper Book) Copy of share application form dated 3.1.2005 (61) i) Copy of confirmation dated 1.4.2005 by M/s Ceefcee ii) Finance Ltd. (62) ii) Copy of receipt of shares dated 3.3.2005 (63) Copy of board resolution dated 3.1.2005 held on iv) 31.3.2003 by M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. (64) Copy of PAN No. AAACG1103H of M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. (65) v) Copy of bank statement of M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. (66) vi) Copy of acknowledgement of return of income dated vii) 12.11.2005 for Assessment year 2004-05 in the case of M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. (67) viii) Copy of ROC Master data (68-69) Copy of affidavit by Shri Tarun Goyal director of M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd. in the shape of confirmation (70) List of directors ix) Copy of audited financial statement for financial year xi) 2003-04 relevant to assessment year 2004-05 (73-91) Copy of memorandum and articles of association of M/s xii) Geefcee Finance Ltd.(92-128) xiv) Copy of annual return of the appellant company (129-131) Copy of statement of account alongwith closing stock as xv) on 31.3.2005 (132-134) xvi) Copy of bank statement of the appellant company (135) Xvi Copy of memorandum and articles of association of M/s Radiance Stock Traders (P) Ltd. (136-147)
The entire submission of the assessee as well as judgement relied upon has been incorporated in the impugned order from pages for 4 to 17.
The ld. CIT (A) has confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer holding that the confirmation filed by these companies cannot be relied upon, because these companies found to be providing accommodation entries and even their bank accounts cannot be relied upon. The balance-sheet of these companies show that they have minor income and huge unexplained reserves and surplus constituting of share premium used for investing in unquoted share in large number of companies including the assessee. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the decision of Tribunal of ITAT Ahmedabad Bench in the case of CIT vs. Nakoda Fashions (P) Ltd. in ITA No.1716/Ahd/2012. Similarly reference was made to certain decision of the Tribunal in the case of entry operators of Shri S.K. Jain and Shri V.K. Jain. He has also referred to the judgement of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Nipun Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., 350 ITR 407 and CIT vs MAF Academy (P) Ltd. He further observed that the only documentary evidence filed by the Assessee is confirmation of the companies, bank statement and copy of acknowledgement of return, however, despite several opportunities, Director of the company was not produced before the Assessing Officer and copy of bank account revealed that there were deposits and withdrawals which leads to an inference that there were some kind of accommodation entry. Accordingly, not only he has confirmed the addition of Rs.10 lacs but also additional account of commission of Rs.25,000/- in obtaining such kind of accommodation entries. The validity of reopening u/s.148 challenged by the assessee has also been dismissed.
9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Gautam Jain submitted that right from the stage of assessment till the stage of ld. CIT (A) in two round of proceedings, the assessee has been repeatedly requesting that whatever material or documents which has been found and used against the assessee should be confronted or should be made available to the assessee so that assessee can make compliance and give its rebuttal. However, till date no such material has been provided despite direction by the Tribunal in first round. The entire basis of addition is based on a statement of one Shri Tarun Goyal and his employees who has not even mentioned any details about the assessee or has referred any material against the assessee. If there is gross valuation of natural justice by not supplying any adverse material then such an addition at the threshold should be knocked off. Apart from that, assessee has filed list of evidences before the Assessing Officer and ld. CIT (A) and without even rebutting those evidences both the authorities have gone by the presumption that these are all routine evidences filed in most of the cases and since Director of these companies were not produced, therefore, these evidences did not have any credible value. The inference drawn by both the authorities simply relying upon the information by the Investigation Wing, evidences filed by the assessee cannot be discarded without confronting any such material. Thus, orders of the authorities below cannot be sustained.
10. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that here in this case not only there was a specific information that assessee was one of the beneficiary of the accommodation entry, but it was gathered from the search carried out in the case of Shri Tarun Goyal Group, wherein it was found that these two companies were managed and controlled by his group and he was providing accommodation entries to various persons. Since these two companies were managed and held by Shri Tarun Goyal group, who had applied for share application money in the assessee company, therefore, it becomes very clear cut that assessee had taken the share application money through mode of accommodation entry provider and hence at the face of it such share application money is unexplained. The ld. CIT (A) has already given a detailed finding as to why the evidences filed by the assessee are not credible and they are only a paper trail duly created to camouflage entire transaction to introduce unaccounted income by way of share capital in the hands of Assessee Company. Thus, addition has rightly been confirmed by the Ld. CIT (A).
I have heard the rival submissions and also perused the relevant findings given in the impugned orders as well as material referred to before me. Here, in this case, the assessee’s case has been reopened on the basis of information received by the Investigation Wing that the assessee company is amongst the beneficiaries of bogus accommodation entries and during the year assessee has received following two amounts from the parties towards share application money:-
S. No. Name of the entry provider Amount
Geefcee Finance Ltd. 5,00,000/- 2. Merta Finance Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000/- 11.1 The relevant “reasons recorded” by the Assessing Officer incorporated in the Appellate order at pages 6 and 7 reads as under: "As per the information received by the office, it is indicated that the assessee company is amongst the beneficiaries of the said bogus accommodation entries and had during the financial year 2004-05 relevant to AY 2005-06 received the following amounts from the parties mentioned against them. Name of the entity provider Amount (Rs.) Geeface Finance Ltd. 5,00,000 Merta Finance Pvt. Ltd. 5,00,000 Total 10,00,000/- In view of the reports from the Investigation Wing and the above facts and circumstances, it is clear that the assessee company has not disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment for the assessment year under consideration. I am in possession of material that discredits and impeaches the particulars furnished by the assessee company and also established the link with the self confessed accommodation entry providers whose business is to help assessee bring into their books of accounts their unaccounted monies through the medium of share subscription. Therefore, I have reason to believe that the income of the assessee to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- has been introduced in the garb of bogus accommodation entries and the same has escaped assessment.
Therefore, it is a fit case for initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the IT Act, and issue of notice u/s. 148 of the IT Act, 1961. Sanction for issue of notice u/s. 148 as prescribed u/s 151, may kindly be accorded".
11.2 From the bare perusal of the ‘reasons recorded’, it is seen that Assessing Officer has himself mentioned that he is in possession of material that discredits and impeaches the particulars furnished by the assessee company and also establishes the link with the accommodation entry providers. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee vide letter dated 13th December, 2012 categorically asked that if Department has some material on record which raises a question mark on the genuineness of the investment, then in absence of any material provided to it, it is humanly impossible to give any comment or give any rebuttal. Moreover, when the entire observation regarding the genuineness of the investment are based on statement of employees of Mr Tarun Goyal with whom assessee did not have any contact and even in their statements also there is no mention of any material or any specific mention of either assessee or the said companies. Again similar letters were written to the Assessing Officer on 18th January, 2018 and 8th February, 2018 and despite all these requests made by the assessee, nowhere it is borne out from the assessment order that any kind of adverse material against the assessee which has been used by the Assessing Officer has been provided to the assessee. The entire reasoning of the Assessing Officer is that, the Directors of the companies were issued summon who have failed to appear and he has also relied upon the report of an Income Tax Officer. The assessee in order to discharge the onus for the credits appearing in the books of account has filed various documents which has already been enlisted in the foregoing paragraphs, which includes PAN details, of number of shares subscribed, where these companies were assessed to tax, list of Directors, bank details, copy of their income tax returns, copy of confirmations, share application form, copy of receipts of shares, board resolution, affidavit of directors, copy of ROC, Master Data, annual return filed with ROC and catena of other evidences. The assessee has also even given the net worth of these companies. The ld. Assessing Officer without giving any conclusive finding on these evidences has simply gone by the fact that, since these entities/ persons were found to be accommodation entry providers, therefore, they cannot be held to be genuine share holder of the assessee- company who could make any genuine investment in the share of the assessee-company. Thus, the entire finding is based on the finding that the onus of the assessee has not been discharged and simply by furnishing papers such an onus cast upon the assessee cannot be held to be discharged. Even the ld. CIT (A) wherein the assessee has specifically asked to provide the entire material and information found against the assessee, has gone by the fact that these companies have been found to be providing accommodation entries through Shri Tarun Goyal group.
The information on the basis of which assessee’s case has been reopened could be very credible information that can lead to prima facie ‘reason to believe’ that the share application money received by the assessee may not be genuine. However, if Assessing Officer has recorded at the time of recording the ‘reasons’ that he is in possession of specific material that discredits the particulars furnished by the assessee then it was all the more incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to share those materials with the assessee, if these materials were to be used against the assessee. It is a tried and well settled law that principles of natural justice has to be strictly adhered which cannot be faltered and if there is any material found against the assessee, then same should not only be confronted to the assessee but it will also be made available to the assessee so that assessee can rebut these material and show that how these material are not relevant for the assessee or they do not implicate the assessee in any manner. The assessee from those materials can point out various factors and adduce evidences to dislodge the material and in case assessee is unable to rebut, then the Department would be wholly justified in drawing any adverse inference. Here in this case the entire addition is made on certain information received from Investigation Wing that assessee company is one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entry, but what is that information received from the Investigation Wing has neither been discussed in the ‘reasons recorded’ nor anywhere in the impugned assessment order or Appellate order; nor it is borne out from any records as to what was the material and evidences gathered by the Investigation Wing against the assessee. If there was any such material, then I find it very difficult to fathom as to why such material should not be shared with the assessee especially when adverse inference is being drawn against it. It is not the case here that assessee has not asked any such material, but as pointed out in the earlier part of the order that on several occasions assessee kept on repeating before the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) that if there is any material on record with the Department then same should be provided to the assessee. Even the Tribunal has directed the department to confront the material, but again same has not been adhered to. The onus was initially upon the AO to confront the material to the assessee and when such material is confronted then onus shifts upon to the assessee. When assessee has filed catena of evidences as listed above, then all the more it was important that Department should have brought something on record to dislodge as to why all these evidences filed by the assessee negates the explanation of the assessee; and if all these evidences were mere paper trial, then the onus was on the Assessing Officer to prove that in the wake of specific material these evidences of the assessee cannot be relied upon. Merely because these two companies were handled by some entry operator that does not mean that entire evidences in the form of statutory records and Income Tax records are either bogus or mere piece of paper. From the reading of both the orders of the Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT (A), I am unable to decipher as to what was the specific material found against the assessee during the course of search carried out on some other place and whether there is any such information or material that these persons have taken some kind of cash from the assessee to provide the accommodation entry or there is any kind of entry in the name of the assessee in the diary or any of the record. Both the authorities have simply relied upon various judgements to hold against the assessee. The judgements are precedent on the facts and there are judgements on such issue, both in favour and against the assessee, depending upon the material facts brought on record. Even if there is an iota of material against the assessee then one can hold that the share application received by the assessee company is bogus and is in the form of accommodation entry. The evidences filed on record cannot be brushed aside unless there is a strong material indicating that these evidences have been fabricated or created for routing the unaccounted money in the circuitous manner. Accordingly, I hold that if principle of natural justice has violated then any adverse material which has been used against the assessee which has not been made available to the assessee, then I find it very difficult to sustain the addition simply based on information which too is in domain of the Department only. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I find no option but to delete the addition.
Accordingly, the addition of Rs.10 lac and Rs.25,000/- is hereby deleted.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27th February, 2019.