Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The Ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in ignoring the findings of Central Forensic Science Laboratory that the computer systems claimed to have been used by the assessee for making advance credit entries on 08.11.2016 were not at all opened/used on that date and consequently the credit entries in the books of account are ante- dated to escape the consequences of accepting SBNs after demonetization.

7. The ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in taking into cognizance the letter dated 01.11.2017 claimed to have been filed by the assessee before the assessing officer without calling for a remand report as no such letter had been filed before the assessing officer.

6. The Ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in ignoring the findings of Central Forensic Science Laboratory that the computer systems claimed to have been used by the assessee for making advance credit entries on 08.11.2016 were not at all opened/used on that date and consequently the credit entries in the books of account are ante- dated to escape the consequences of accepting SBNs after demonetization.

7. The ld.CIT(Appeal) erred in taking into cognizance the letter dated 01.11.2017 claimed to have been filed by the assessee before the assessing officer without calling for a remand report as no such letter had been filed before the assessing officer.

13. Ld. DR further submitted that the assessee had made the declaration under Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana and voluntarily declared the amount of Rs.40 crores of its income by filing an affidavit under the said scheme. In the said scheme, it was ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 admitted by the assessee that the assessee owned the entire amount of Rs. 40 crores.

14. The Revenue had reported the matter about the wrong and illegal activity of the assessee with the Enforcement Directorate under the PML Act and also with the local police. The local police had registered the F.I.R on 07.12.2016. The same was challenged by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court and the stay of arrest was granted to the assessee. In the meanwhile, the confessional statement of Mr. Neel Sunder was recorded by the Revenue on 07.12.2016 and thereafter, his statement was also recorded by Enforce Department on 26.12.2016. The Revenue had also recorded the statement of Mr. Nitin Gupta on 02.12.2016 and 07.12.2016. The statement of Mr. Nitin Gupta was also recorded by Enforcement Department on 20.12.2016. Even after recording of the statement by the ED, the assessee had filed the affidavit and sought to avail the scheme under the PMGKY. The documents seized along with the computer and CCTV footage were handed over to the ED by the Income tax Department on 13.12.2016. The neighbour's statement was recorded by the revenue on 12.01.2017, whereby it was confirmed that CCTV footage of the neighbouring premises showing the assessee's premises were removed by the relatives of the assessee and thereafter, storage drive was replaced with new one. The computer hard disk recovered from the premises of the assessee were sent for CFSL report received by the E.D/Revenue. The report of the CFSL was received by the Revenue on 10.03.2017, and the Forensic Analysis of the Computers and the Software installed therein clearly shows that no ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 events between 27.10.2016 to 09.11.2016 had occurred (Page 142 of the paper book.). The CFSL Report further shows that the system was shut down on 08.11.2016 at 18:45:34 and it was again logged on 09.11.2016 at 09:20:32. Thus, it was clear that no receipts were issued by the assessee either on 08.11.2016 or on 09.11.2016. The above said information was confronted to the assessee during the assessment proceedings by Assessing Officer, however, the assessee had tried to shift his liability to Mr. Neel Sunder during the course of assessment. The AO after examining the record had concluded that undoubtedly, 2153 customers, who paid the advances were duly reflected in the books of the assessee as on 08.11.2016 which fact has not been disputed by the assessee. It was also not disputed that the amount of Rs. 40 crores were deposited in the bank account of the assessee. It was the contention of the ld. DR that merely because the money was deposited with the help of wife of Neel Sunder or by Neel Sunder, the assessee was not discharged from proving the entries under section 68 of the Act. Further, it was the contention of the ld. DR that the assessee had utilized the said amount of Rs. 40 crores for purchasing the Gold from Ashtalaxmi Gold and Impex Gold. It was submitted that the reliance of the ld.CIT(A) on the statement of Mr. Neel Sunder recorded by the police during the course of investigation cannot override the admission made by the assessee during the course of survey, which is further supported by the assessee's own books of accounts and / or will nor relieve the assessee from the onus casted on it u/s 68 of the Act. It was further submitted by the ld. DR that the revenue had also recorded the ITA Nos.560 & 561/Hyd/2020 and ITA 58 & 59/Hyd/2021 statement of Neel Sunder on 07.12.2016 whereby said Neel Sunder had confirmed the original statement of the M.D. of the assessee. It was submitted by the ld.DR that the statement recorded by the police u/s. 161 Cr.P.C can not be used for any other purpose except to confront the witness during the course of trial u/s 162 Cr.P.C. However, the confession statement recorded by the police u/s 26 of the Evidence Act while Mr. Neel Sunder was in police custody has no binding effect in the eyes of law. The ld.DR had submitted that there is an admission of liability by the assessee and further, there is no retraction of the statement recorded on 01.12.2016 / 07.12.2016 in the eyes of law. It was also submitted that the assessee, for the first time on 01.11.2017 had submitted a letter along with the confessional statements of Mr. Nitin Gupta, Pavan Agarwal and Mr. Neel Sunder in the office of the Assessing Officer. However, he had not disclosed who had delivered the said letter in the office of the Assessing Officer.