Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8.6 It is thus seen that many discrepancies and differences were pointed out to the Appellant and opportunities were given for it to explain the case, through various Order Sheet entries and opportunities in the appellate proceedings. However, the Appellant has not come out with clean hands even at this stage. Though it was repeatedly claimed by the Appellant that the FIITJEE Group was controlling the Bank Account and the unexplained transactions, but the appellant did not give complete evidence against M/s. FIITJEE Ltd., and despite repeated opportunities did not specify the particular individuals of the FIITJEE Group who were involved in making the transactions through the Bank Accounts of the Appellant.

8.14 It is seen that the Appellant was involved in the design to defraud the Revenue, and now when the scheme has been exposed, has sought to claim that the Appellant itself had no control over the matters. It is seen that the Bank Account belonged to the Appellant, but it was claimed by the Appellant that the Bank Account was operated by-

persons of the FI1TJEE Group. The Appellant was required to specify the exact persons involved and to explain as to how the FIITJEE Group was carrying out the transactions from the Bank Account of the Appellant. The Appellant was also required to support the claims with full details and evidences. However, the Appellant kept on stating that the FIITJEE Group was having full control over the transactions through the Bank Account of the Appellant, but did not submit complete evidence against the FIITJEE Group.

8.15 It is observed that when confronted with the mismatch and discrepancies, it was claimed by the Appellant that they cannot explain any discrepancy or difference, "as transactions were routed by officials of FIITJEE Group. You are requested to ask the reason of the same from FIITJEE Group." The Appellant further stated in the Written Submissions dated 06.03.17 that:

"In support of our claim, that bank account was operated by FIITJEE group. We want to submit that, cheques for routing the transaction were filled and deposited by them and we did not have any control over there."

8.16 Again, in the Written Submissions dated 23.03.17, it was again submitted by the Appellant that "the claimed documents were not signed by us, reply this question, and would be best answered by FIITJEE only.

ITA No.3980 & 3981/Del/2017 8.17 It is thus seen that many discrepancies and differences were pointed out to the Appellant and opportunities were given for it to explain the case, through various Order Sheet entries and opportunities in the appellate proceedings. However, the Appellant has not come out with clean hands even at this stage. Though it was repeatedly claimed by the Appellant that the FIITJEE Group was controlling the Bank Account and the Unexplained transactions, but the Appellant did not give complete evidence against M/s FIITJEE Ltd., and despite repeated opportunities did not specify the particular individuals of the FIITJEE Group who were involved in maxing the transactions through the Bank Accounts of the Appellant.