Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. On 24.12.2007, a request for adjournment was made on behalf of the Assessee to 27.12.2007. However, on 27.12.2007, none appeared for the Assessee, so the assessment was made on the basis of details filed by the Assessee, inquiries made by the AO and details ======================================================================= available in the original assessment records.

11. The Assessing Officer noticed that the extracts of bank accounts submitted by the Assessee during the original assessment proceedings had been fabricated. The Assessing Officer had requisitioned the bank statements from the banks which established that immediately before the issuance of ch eques for the purpose of making pay order or demand draft, there was a deposit of cash. The A ssessing Officer noticed that the entry by transfer shown in the bank account (furnished by the Assessee in the original assessment proceedings) was fabricated. The Assessing Officer prepared the following chart as a comparison between the fabricated entries and actual bank statement obtained from the bank.

M/s. Landmark Communication Pvt. Ltd.

(A/c No.3194 with Jai Laxmi Co-op. Bank) FABRICATED STATEMENT Date Narration Cheque Debit Credit Balance ======================================================================= No. 28 /0 8 /20 00 By Tr -- -- 5,01, 500 5,03, 050 cr.

======================================================================= Cr.

        30 /0 8 /20 00      To       494 83 4   5,00, 000       --            5,02, 310
                         Cle aring                                                   Cr.
        30 /0 8 /20 00     To Tr     494 83 5   5,00, 750       --            1,56 0 Cr.
                           (PAY
                         ORDER)

M/s. Jai Baba Traders Pvt. Ltd. (A/c. No.17757 with Canara Bank, Ballimaran Delhi) FABRICATED STATEMENT Date Narration Cheque Debit Credit Balance No. 31 AUG TR -- -- 450 00 0 4,55, 366 200 0 Cr.

20. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT (Appeals) as confirmed by the ITAT, the Revenue has filed the present appeal.

21. Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Revenue has submitted that the orders of the CIT (Appeals) and the ======================================================================= ITAT are perverse in as much as they have failed to appreciate the fabrication in the bank statements of the share applicants that had been filed by the Assessee. The Assessee had failed to establi sh the creditworthiness of the investors and also the genuineness of the transaction.