Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: PURI in Dcit, New Delhi vs M/S. Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd., New ... on 27 December, 2017Matching Fragments
6. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the statement recorded on oath u/s 132(4) of Sh.Mohinder Puri wherein he offered unaccounted income for taxation on account of entries provided by M/s.Sino Credit & Leasing Ltd.
7. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that even during the course of course of cross examination on oath of Sh.S.K.Gupta with Sh. Mohinder Puri held on 17.04.204, Sh. Gupta admitted to be an entry operator who has provided entries to M/s.MAD Entertainment Network Ltd and earned commission income thereon.
8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIRT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that the affidavit submitted by Sh.SK Gupta on 27.02.2009 wherein he has claimed to have genuine business transaction with M/s Sino Credits & Leasing Ltd and M/s.Mad Puri Construction Pvt.Ltd is false in view of his statement recorded on oath during the cross examination before Sh.Mohinder Puri on 17.04.2014 and 21.04.2014.
9. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in ignoring that the assessee produced fabricated evidences in the form of MOU and arbitration award to give legal colour to the alleged transactions to escape from taxation.
7. Ground 1 relates to deletion of addition of Rs. 11,45,18,528/- being the expenditure claimed by the assessee under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in the instant assessment year.
7. The factual matrix emanating from the order below is that the appellant sold land measuring 10.53 acres in Sector-53, Gurgaon to M/s. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. The sale of land was by the appellant alongwith two directors namely Mohinder Puri and Arjun Puri and other related persons namely M/s MAD Entertainment Network Ltd., M/s. Florentine Estates of India Ltd. and M/s. Sunil/Gurlien Manchanda. This sale was under an agreement dated 4.4.2005 and aggregate consideration accruing as a result of the said sale was of Rs. 149.98 crores. Against the consideration accrued to the assessee on the sale of land and, the appellant claimed an expenditure of Rs. 11,45,18,828/- under proviso to section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The premise of the claim is that TDS was deposited on 25.1.2005 i.e. during the instant assessment year 2006-07; and therefore, in the computation of total income for the instant assessment year, sum of Rs. 11,45,18,528/-was claimed as deduction under the narration "expenditure disallowed under section 40a(ia) of the Act in financial year 2004-05 now allowable". It is relevant to state here that expenditure of Rs. 11,45,18,828/- was claimed under section 37(1) of the Act in assessment year 2005-06 but disallowed in the computation of income filed by the assessee for assessment year 2005-06 under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and assessee had added back expenditure debited in the profit and loss account of Rs. 11,45,18,528/- on the ground that though the company deducted TDS but the same was not deposited before the due date for assessment year 2005-06. 7.2 During the assessment proceedings for assessment year 2006-07, the learned Assessing Officer has noted that expenditure of Rs. 11,45,18,528/- pertained to 24 parties and in order to verify the identity and genuineness of these 24 parties and the work stated to have been done by them, he made enquiries by issuing summons under section 131 of the Act to them, deputing inspector to conduct inquiries at the premises of the above parties and issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to certain banks asking for the account opening forms and statement of account of the aforesaid parties. The learned Assessing Officer has also noted that summons were also issued to some persons who were found related to one or more of the 24 parties on the basis of account opening forms received from the banks. The result of the enquiries was incorporated in the show cause notice issued to the assessee company on 19.12.2008. The appellant furnished a reply dated 26.12.2008 to the Assessing Officer. The contentions raised therein have been summarized in the appellate order of CIT(A) and reads as under:
2.4 Coming to the statement recorded on 19/12/2008 the Assessing Officer was directed to provide opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine Sh.Gupta. For this purpose the matter wa s remanded back to him. Detailed cross-examination was carried out on 17/4/2014 & 21/4/2014 respectively by Sh.Mohinder Puri, Managing Director of the assessee company. 2.5. In his statement on 19/12/2008 (Q.No.3) Sh.Gupta stated that he did not know anyone in Puri Construction Ltd and probably someone from their finance department approached him through some Chartered Accountant known to him when cheque were delivered and equivalent amount of cash was returned after deducting commission.