Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.2 Without prejudice to the above, Learned counsel for the assessees submitted that the statements of Abhishek Basu cannot be relied as that statement annexed at pages 8 to 12 of the assessment order is unsigned statement and therefore, this statement has no evidentiary value. As and 114, 116 & 117/Lkw/2019 11 regards the statement of Pradeep Dey, it was submitted that in reply to question No. 5, he has stated that he was employee of Subodh Agarwal and in reply to question No. 6 he stated that he was dummy director of the company. It was submitted that no question was asked by the authorized officer from Pradeep Dey in respect of any transactions of Success Vyapar Limited. As regards the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khemka, it was submitted that only part statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khemka was provided and from perusal of the statement it is not known that in whose presence and at what place statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khemka was recorded and which officer had recorded his statement. It was further argued that Shri Anil Kumar Khemka was not director in Success Vyapar Limited and Neil Industries Ltd. and therefore, his statement has no relevance. As regards statement of Shri Raj Kumar Tharad, it was submitted that the assessees had no transactions with him or with companies in which he is a director. Similarly, it was argued that there was no transaction of assessee with Sunil Kaya and therefore, the statement of Shri Sunil Kaya is also not relevant and therefore, also it was argued that the statements cannot be relied against the entire evidence which the assessees had filed before the Assessing Officer.