ACIT, Ajmer V. PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BHILWARA

ITA 604/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6868 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDAR MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; NIKKY JHAMTANI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries; Assessment record; Reason to believe
• Section: 153A; 115JB; 133(6); 147; 131; 68; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC H A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 604/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER CUKE VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., A-4M, BHILWARA TEXTILE MARKET, BHILWARA LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACP 8449 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SH. VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : MS. NIKKY JHAMTANI (CA) & SH. PRAKUL KHURANA (ADV.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/06/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/07/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR DATED 28.03.2016 FOR A.Y 2007-08 WHEREIN TH E REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1, 03,50,000/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACTS THAT COMPANIES AND CONCERNS RUN BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUM AR JAIN WERE NOT CARRYING OUT ANY GENUINE BUSINESS NOR DID THEY NOT HAVE ANY PHYSICAL STOCK OF GOODS, WHICH THEY CLAIMED TO BE DEALING IN AND HE IS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IS PROVED FROM HIS STATEMENT AND THE STATEMENTS OF HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW AND ASSOCIATES REC ORDED ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 2 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26.09.2012 AT THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SOMANI RATHI KABRA GROUP AN D THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS PREMISES WERE ALSO COVERED UNDER THE SAID SEARCH AN D SEIZURE OPERATIONS. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 16.04.2 013 AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DAT ED 15.05.2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,33,490/- AND BOOKS PROFIT OF RS. 3,95,900/- U/S 115JB OF THE ACT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ON REVIEW OF THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS ISSUED SHARES OF FACE VALUE OF RS 10 EACH AT A PREMIUM OF RS 20 EACH TO V ARIOUS COMPANIES WITH VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOTALLI NG TO RS. 1,03,50,000/-. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH E INVESTIGATION WING OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI HAS CONDUCTED THE SEA RCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN CASE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP WHEREIN BASIS H IS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) AND OTHER SEIZED EVIDENCES, IT IS ESTABLISHE D THAT HE IS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES LIKE BOGUS PURCHASE , SALES, UNSECURED LOANS, SHARE CAPITAL ETC. ACCORDINGLY, A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE 4. IN ITS RESPONSE TO THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE, THE AS SESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO ISSUE OF SHARES TO THE AFORESAID COMPAN IES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED ON THE GENERAL STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN IS NOT CORRECT AND BEFORE T HE SAID STATEMENT IS USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, A COPY OF THE SAID STATEMENT SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN. ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 3 5. THE SUBMISSION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS HOWEVER NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS PER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, THESE INVESTMENT COMPANIES ARE CONTROLLED BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND BASIS THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING , MUMBAI, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN HAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES AND HIS STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED U/S 132(4) WHEREIN HE H AS ADMITTED THAT HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THR OUGH THE COMPANIES UNDER HIS CONTROL. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI UTTAM HINGER, BROTHER-IN-LAW OF SHRI PRAVEEN K UAMR JAIN AND THE STATEMENTS OF SH. CHANDER SHEKHAR GOYAL AND SHRI DI NESH CHOUDHARY WHICH ALL WERE RECORDED U/S 132(4)/131 DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI. ACCORD INGLY, THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,03,50,000/- MADE BY AFORESAID COMPANIES WERE TREATED AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND ADDITION OF RS 1,03,50,00 0 WAS MADE IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGL Y COMPLETED AT INCOME OF RS. 1,07,83,490/- VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2014 PA SSED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 153B/143(3) OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE FOLLOWING GROU ND OF APPEAL (GROUND NO. 3), BESIDES OTHER GROUNDS, WHICH WE DEEM IT APPROPR IATE TO REFER AND WHICH READS AS UNDER: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. AO HAS ERRED IN PASSING IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER: A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH B WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 4 C BY DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE BASIS OF STAT EMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN D WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHR I PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN E BY NOT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION/SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ASSIGNING/PROVID ING ANY SUBSTANTIAL REASONING OR EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. F WITHOUT PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. 7. IN THE CONTEXT OF AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND BY THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH CAN ESTABLISH ANY UNDISCLOSED INCO ME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT TH E STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NO FINDING HAS BEEN RECORD ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS TO HOW THE SAID STATEMENT IS HELD AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALL Y REQUESTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, HOWEVER, THE SAID REQUEST WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WITHOUT AL LOWING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, HIS STATEMENT CANN OT BE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED VARI OUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINE SS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS TOWARDS ISSUE OF SHARES TO THE INVESTO R COMPANIES DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY A DVERSE INFERENCE OR COMMENT ON THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 5 PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED INFORMATI ON FROM FIVE OF INVESTOR COMPANIES U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE, TH ESE INVESTORS COMPANIES HAVE SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS AND THE CONFIRMATION S O SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NO COGNISANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISS IONS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE LD CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A). 8. BEFORE WE REFER TO THE CONTENTIONS ADVANCED BY B OTH THE PARTIES, WE REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WH ICH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE AND ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 4.3 TO 4.3.10 OF HIS ORDER WH ICH READS AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENT OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. 4.3.1 IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LD. AO DIDN'T PROVIDE THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHER PERS ONS TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AND FURTHER HE DIDN'T ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION T O THE APPELLANT WHILE TAKING ADVERSE VIEW FROM STATEMENT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHER PERSONS AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE SOLE BASIS OF TH E ADDITION IS THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, THE EXTRACT O F WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT IS MENTIO NED THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN WAS RECORDED BY THE DIT( INVESTIGATION), MUMBAI AND HE WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES. 4.3.2 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANCE OF THIS STAT EMENT AND DRAWING INFERENCE FROM THE SAME, NOT ONLY THE CONTEXT AND H IS COMPLETE ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 6 STATEMENT IS REQUIRED BUT EVEN SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPME NTS IN THAT MATTER ARE ALSO IMPORTANT TO BE KNOWN. WITHOUT THEM, IT WO ULD BE INCORRECT TO MAKE ANY INFERENCE OUT OF THE SAME, PARTICULARLY WH EN THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE APPELLANT BEFO RE RELYING UPON THE SAME. 4.3.3 AS AGAINST THIS, THE APPELLANT DISCHARGED I TS BURDEN CAST UPON IT U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY PRODUCING ALL THE EVIDENCES SU CH AS AFFIDAVITS OF THE PRESENT DIRECTORS OF THE APPLICANT COMPANIES CONFIR MING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THEIR COMPANIES INTO THE EQUITY SHARES OF T HE APPELLANT IN THE AY 2007-08, CONFIRMATIONS, BOARD RESOLUTIONS, BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE TRANSACTIONS MADE THROUGH BANKING CH ANNELS OR THROUGH RTGS, COPIES OF SHARE APPLICATION FORMS, PAN NOS, C ERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION ETC. 4.3.4 ALL THESE EVIDENCES WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFOR E THE LD. AO AND INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY HIM U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF FIVE INVESTORS AND ALL THESE INVESTORS HAVE REPLIED TO T HE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED THE FACT OF HAVING MADE TH E INVESTMENT IN THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 4.3.5 UNDER THESE SET OF EVENTS AND FACTS THE INFE RENCE DRAWN FROM THE STATEMENT OF MR. PRAVEEN JAIN COULD NOT BE RELI ED UPON AS EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND RATHER THE ONUS CAST ON THE APPELLANT STOOD DISCHARGED BY LEADING DIRECT EVIDEN CES. 4.3.6 THE APPELLANT'S EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE SUCCE SSFULLY NEGATED BY THE AO AND HE FAILED TO MAKE OUT A CASE AGAINST OF THE APPELLANT. AT THE BEST, THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO COULD BE STARTING POINT FOR AN ENQUIRY BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE SOLE ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 7 DEPENDABLE EVIDENCE FOR DISBELIEVING THE EXPLANATIO N OFFERED AND DISCARDING THE DIRECT EVIDENCE PRODUCED. 4.3.7 THE A/R HAS RELIED UPON THE VARIOUS JUDGMENT TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION THAT STATEMENT OF THE THIRD PARTY WITHOU T CROSS EXAMINATION CANNOT BE TAKEN AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND NO ADDITI ON CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH STATEMENT. FOR THIS HE HA S PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS. THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COV ERED BY SETTLED LAW ON CROSS EXAMINATION OF THIRD PARTY BY RATIOS OF FO LLOWING JUDGMENTS IN CASES OF: KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. EASTERN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES [1994] 210 ITR 103 (CAL.) PRAKASH CHAND MEHTA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [ 1996] 220 ITR 277 (MP) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMC SHARE BROKERS LT D. [2007] 159 TAXMAN 306 DELHI COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. FAIR FINVEST LTD. [2 013] 357 ITR 146 DELHI ITO VS. SOFTLINE CREATIONS (P) LTD. ITA NO. 744/DEL /2012 4.3.8 THEREFORE, THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION IN T HE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND O THER PERSON CANNOT BE RELIED UPON BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO THE SAME, THE APPELLANT HAS DI SCHARGED ITS BURDEN BY PRODUCING SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PLACE D ON RECORD, TO ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 8 ESTABLISH IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE INVESTORS. . 4.3.9 IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT MONEY RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT GENUINE OR INVESTORS WERE BOG US, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF RATIO OF DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, THE HIGH COURTS AND THE TRIB UNALS IN KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), SHREE BARKHA SYNTHETICS LT D. V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (2006) 155 TAXMAN 289 (R AJ.), DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LIMITED [2008] 299 ITR 268 (DELHI ) , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. ROCK FORT METAL & MIN ERALS LTD. [2011] 198 TAXMAN 497 (DELHI), OASIS HOSPITALITIES (PVT.) LTD. VS. CIT (DELHI HC) (2011) 333 ITR 119, CIT VS. CREATIVE WORLD TELEFILMS LTD (2011) 333 ITR 100 (BORN), WHICH HAVE BEEN ALSO BEEN FOLLOWED RECENTLY BY HON'BLE DELHI TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO V S. SOFTLINE CREATIONS (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 744/DE1/2012 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 10.02.2016. 4.3.10 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED IN ABOVE REFERRE D JUDGMENTS, THIS ADDITION OF RS. 1,03,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND THE SAME STANDS DELETED. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR SUPPORT ED THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT WAS HAVING NECESSARY INFORMATION PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIO N IN CASE OF PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP AND BASIS SUCH INFORMATION, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 9 FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES FROM THESE INVESTORS COMPANIES. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME SHOU LD BE UPHELD AND THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET-ASIDE. 10. PER CONTRA, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 26.09.2012, NO INCRIM INATING DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER WERE FOUND BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.10.2007 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD EXPIRED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. THEREFORE, AT TIME OF SEARCH WHICH HAPPENED ON 26.0 9.2012, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ABATED AND STOO D ALREADY COMPLETED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL IT, N EW DELHI VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA [2017] 82 TAXMANN.COM 287, DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. [2017] 81 TAXMANN.COM 292 AND DECISION OF VARI OUS CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT IN CASE OF COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN T DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SOLELY RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN, SH. UTTAM HINGER, SH. CHANDER SHEKHAR GOYAL, SH. DINESH CHOUDHARY. HO WEVER, THE STATEMENTS OF THESE PERSONS WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 10 BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF A THIRD PARTY WI THOUT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON. IN SUPPORT, RELIA NCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF ANDMAN TI MBER IND. VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (2015) 281 CTR 211 ( SC). 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED DETAIL DOCUMENTATION TO SATISFY THE TEST OF IDENTIT Y, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE DOCUMENTS SO FILE D AND HAS RELIED SOLELY ON THE STATEMENT OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER CALLED FOR T HE INFORMATION U/S 133(6) FROM THE AFORESAID INVESTOR COMPANIES AND THESE COMPANIE S HAVE RESPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, NO COGNIZANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A ) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE AFORESAID CONTENTIONS AND THE FINDINGS AND THE ORDE R THE LD. CIT(A) MAY ACCORDINGLY BE CONFIRMED. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSEL F, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN THE MATTER. THE REASON FOR THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE OFFICE NOTE WHICH FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WHICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE BENCH AS PART OF THE APPEAL DOCUMENTATION. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RE PRODUCE THE OFFICE NOTE IN VERBATIM AS UNDER: 1. THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI H AS PASSED ON INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN EQUITY SHAR ES OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES:- I) NAKSHTRA BUSINESS PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 11 (HEMA TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.) II) OLIVE OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. (REAL GOLD TRADING COMPANY PVT. LTD.) III) KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT LTD. IV) VANGUARD JEWELS LTD. V) LEXUS INFOTECH LTD. VI) ALKA DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD. VII) JAVDA INDIA IMPEX LTD. THESE COMPANIES ARE SAID TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT IN LACS OF RUPEES IN THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS I.E. LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF EQUITY SHARES, CONFIRMATIONS, CO PIES OF BANK STATEMENTS FROM WHICH ABOVE COMPANY TRANSFERRED AMOUNT FOR PUR CHASE OF SHARES ETC. WERE CALLED, VERIFIED AND PLACED ON THE RECORDS. TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED AFFIDAVITS, COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME, COP Y OF PAN, RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COMPANIES, PROOF OF REGISTRATION OF COMPAN Y IN THE ROC & BALANCE SHEET WITH SCHEDULES FROM THE INVESTOR COMPANIES. F URTHER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT INQUIRY BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE I .T. ACT IN THE CASE OF FIVE COMPANIES OUT OF ABOVE SEVEN WAS MADE. THESE COMPAN IES SUBMITTED RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNTS, RELATED BANK STATEMENTS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET. ON VERI FICATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CALLED FROM THE INVES TOR COMPANIES, IT IS FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AGREES WITH THE BAL ANCE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTOR COMPANIES . HOWEVER, ADDITION OF RS. 1,03,50,000/- HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ACCOM MODATION ENTRIES. 2. DETAILS & WORKING OF FBT CALLED AND ON VERIFICAT ION OF THE SAME IT IS FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF FBT WAS EXACTLY CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OFFERED FOR TAX. ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 12 14. AS APPARENT FROM THE ABOVE OFFICE NOTE WHICH IS PART OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, FOR THE PURPOSES OF VERIFYING THE TRANSACT IONS TOWARDS THE ISSUE OF SHARE CAPITAL TO VARIOUS COMPANIES DURING THE FINAN CIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE DETAIL DOCUMENTATION IN TERMS OF LEDGER ACCOUNT, CONFIRMATIONS, BANK STATEMENTS ETC WERE CA LLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY WERE DULY VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS, COPY OF THE RETURN O F INCOME, BOARD RESOLUTIONS AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE INVESTOR COMPAN IES. FURTHER, THE NOTICES HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO FIVE INVESTOR COMPANIES U/S 133 (6) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF THE INVESTMENTS SO MADE BY THEM IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . BASIS THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ON VERIF ICATION OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CALLED FROM THE INVES TOR COMPANIES, IT IS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT AGREES WITH THE BALAN CE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS INVESTORS COMPANIES. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ON US CAST ON IT U/S 68 AND ONCE INITIAL ONUS HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ONCE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTATION SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED BY HIM DIRECTLY FROM THE INVESTOR CO MPANIES, WE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE HAS MERELY PROCEEDED BASIS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE I NVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN CASE OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP AND HAS KEPT SILENT ON THE DOCUMENTATION AND VERIFICATION SO CARRIED OUT BY HIM IN RESPECT OF DIRECT EVIDENCES SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 15. NOW COMING TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM TH E INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI IN RESPECT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION I N CASE OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP. WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 13 HAS STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT COMPANIES ARE CONTRO LLED BY SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN AND BASIS THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN HAS INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND HIS STATEMENT WAS ALSO RE CORDED U/S 132(4) WHEREIN HE HAS ADMITTED THAT HE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES THROUGH THE COMPANIES UNDER HIS CONTROL. FU RTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI UTTAM HING ER WHO IS BROTHER-IN-LAW OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUAMR JAIN, THE STATEMENT OF SH. CHAND ER SHEKHAR GOYAL AND SHRI DINESH CHOUDHARY WHICH ALL WERE RECORDED U/S 132(4) /131 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION W ING, MUMBAI. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY HAS REQUESTED FOR COPY OF THEIR STATEMENTS AND EVEN REQUESTED TO CROS S-EXAMINE SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED EITHER THE COPY OF THEIR STATEMENTS OR ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE SH. PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN. WE FIND THE SAID CONTENTIONS TO BE FACTUALLY CORRECT. THEREFOR E, FOLLOWING THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER IND. (SUPRA), THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SOLELY RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF SH. PRAVEEN KUMA R JAIN AND OTHERS WITHOUT ALLOWING CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT AT THE BEST, THE IN FORMATION RECEIVED BY THE AO (FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI) COULD BE S TARTING POINT FOR AN ENQUIRY BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS THE SO LE DEPENDABLE EVIDENCE FOR DISBELIEVING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED A ND DISCARDING THE DIRECT EVIDENCE PRODUCED. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH IN CASE OF M/S CHOICE BUILDESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR (IN ITA NO. 431/JP/2016 AND 432/JP/2016 DATED 28.03.2018) HAS TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW AND THE RELEVANT FINDING ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 14 10. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF ADDITION OF RS 3 5 LACS MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON CAREFUL EXAMINAT ION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE WHER E THE AO HAS RELIED BLINDLY ON INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE INVESTIGATIO N WING MUMBAI WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY FURTHER EXAMINATION OF DOC UMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IND EPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF THESE INVESTOR COMPANIES. AS WE H AVE NOTED ABOVE, THE INFORMATION SO RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING , MUMBAI AND AFTER DUE EXAMINATION THEREOF, THE AO HAS FORMED A PRIMA FACIE VIEW AND A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT AND HAS THUS ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT. AT THE SA ME TIME, SUCH A PRIMA FACIE VIEW HAS TO BE FINALIZED AND A FIRM VIEW HAS TO BE TAKEN ON BASIS OF EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS SO BROUGHT ON RECORD AND F URTHER INVESTIGATION TO BE CARRIED OUT BEFORE ANY TAX LIABILITY IS FASTE NED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS SUBMITTED DETAIL DOCUMENTATION IN REGARD TO THESE COMPANIES FROM WHO M A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.35 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED NAMELY (I) SHARE APPLIC ATION FORM (II) COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION (III) COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS REFL ECTING PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE (IV) AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS A ND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ITR (V) COPY OF CERTIFICATE OF L NCORPORATION AND CERTIFICATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS (VI) COPY O F PAN CARD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE FURNISHES THE DOCUMENTATION AND NECESS ARY EXPLANATION, THE AO SHOULD EXAMINE WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS SO SUBM ITTED AND EXPLANATION SO OFFERED ESTABLISHES THE THREE INGRED IENTS I.E. IDENTITY OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF INVESTOR COMPANY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. WHETHER EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELIABLE OR ACCEPTABLE? IF YES, NO FURTHER ACTION I S REQUIRED AND THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY NOT BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX. IF TH E EXPLANATION SO OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE OR RELIAB LE, THE AO SHOULD GIVE ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 15 A DETAILED REASONING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR NO T ACCEPTING THE SAME. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SHOULD BE SPEAKING ONE B RINGING ON RECORD ALL THE FACTS, EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CREDIT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, W E FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY EFFORTS TO EXAMINE TH ESE DOCUMENTS SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS SIMPLY GONE BY HIS PRIMA FACIE VIEW FORMED AT THE TIME OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 AND SUCH A PRIMA FACIE VIEW WITHOUT FURTHER EXAMINATION/INVESTIGATION CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR FORMING A FINAL VIEW OF MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE AO WAS IN RECEIPT OF MATERIA L INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION/ INVESTMENT FROM SEVEN COMPANIES WHO ARE NOT DOING GENUINE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AS DIVULGED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OP ERATIONS IN CASE OF PRAVEEN JAIN GROUP. IN THESE SITUATIONS, THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT SIT BACK WITH FOLDED HANDS AND THEN COME FORWARD TO MERELY REJECT THE EXPLANATION SO MADE, W ITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY VERIFICATION OR ENQUIRY INTO THE MATERIAL PLACE D BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HARBOURS ANY DOU BTS OF THE LEGITIMACY OF ANY SUBSCRIPTION HE IS EMPOWERED, NAY DUTY-BOUND , TO CARRY OUT THOROUGH INVESTIGATIONS. BUT IF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FAILS TO UNEARTH ANY WRONG OR ILLEGAL DEALINGS, HE CANNOT OBDURATELY ADH ERE TO HIS SUSPICIONS AND TREAT THE SUBSCRIBED CAPITAL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE COMPANY. WE THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD AR THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY FALSITY WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE DOCUMENTS SO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROVE THE IDEN TITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE SHARE TRANS ACTION, THESE ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 16 DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE SUMMARILY REJECTED AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO ACTION TAKEN BY THE AO IN TERMS OF CALLING INFORMATION FROM THESE COMPANIE S UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND/OR ISSUING SUMMONS TO DIRECTORS OF THESE COMPANIES UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, WHERE THE AO RELI ES UPON THE STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES (PRAVEEN JAIN AND OTHERS) RECORDED U/S 132(4), WITHOUT GETTING INTO CONTROVERSY WHETHER THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE DE SERVES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SUCH PERSONS AS HELD B Y THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES (SUPRA). DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS MADE SPECIFIC REQUEST TO THE AO TO ALLOW CROSS EXAMINATI ON OF THESE PERSONS WHICH HAS HOWEVER NOT BEING PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE DONT FIND ANY BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ALLOWED. 16. NOW COMING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, NO ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THIS C ONTENTION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AS PART OF ITS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, HOWEVER THE SAME WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DEALT WITH BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE GROUND TO THAT EXTENT WAS DISMISSED. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CROSS-OBJECTION, UNDER RULE 27, T HE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO DEFEND THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) BY RAISING THI S CONTENTION BEFORE US. IN THIS REGARD, USEFUL REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO THE D ECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PCIT VS SUN PHARMACEUTICALS I NDUSTRIES LTD [2017] 86 TAXMANN.COM 148 WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 17 11. TO PUT THE CONTROVERSY BEYOND DOUBT, RULE 27 O F THE RULES MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE RESPONDENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL EVEN WITHOUT FILING AN APPEAL CAN SUPPORT THE ORDER APPEALED AGA INST ON ANY OF THE GROUNDS DECIDED AGAINST HIM. IT CAN BE EASILY APPRE CIATED THAT ALL PRAYERS IN THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSIONER (A PPEALS), HOWEVER, SOME OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT MAY NOT HA VE APPEALED TO THE COMMISSIONER. WHEN SUCH AN ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONE R IS AT LARGE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE RESPONDENT BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEFEND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER ON ALL GROU NDS INCLUDING ON GROUNDS HELD AGAINST HIM BY THE COMMISSIONER WITHOU T FILING AN INDEPENDENT APPEAL OR CROSS-OBJECTION. 17. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.10.2007 AND TIME LIMIT FOR I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS EXPIRED ON 30.09.2008 BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 26.09.2012. THEREFORE, ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE A SSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS NOT PENDING/ABATED AND ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OR FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELA TING TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY ANY OF THESE COMPANIES IN THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY, RATHER THE WHOLE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FRO M THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT NO ADDITION MAY BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA), THE HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD (SUPRA), AND HONBL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 604-JP-2016 ACIT, AJMER VS. M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BH ILWARA 18 CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) ACIT (SUPRA) SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 18. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE EN TIRETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE MATTER IS DECIDED AG AINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/07/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29/07/2019 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S PUJA SYNTHETICS PVT. LTD., BHIL WARA 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 604/JP/2016} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR