Bogus expenditure: A statement recorded u/s 133A under fear/ coercion cannot be relied upon by the AO if it is not corroborated by documentary evidence. The assessee is entitled to retract such statement. The AO is bound to give the assessee an opportunity to controvert evidence and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. A failure in providing the same can result in the order being a nullity (All judgements considered)

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-4, Mumbai dated 11/02/2018 for A.Y.2007-08 to 2011-12 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the IT Act.

2. Common grounds have been taken by the assessee in all the years under consideration in respect of above mentioned three concerns. The grounds taken in the case of Concept Communications Ltd., in the A.Y.2007-08 reads as under:-

3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 11,92,65,022/- inspite of the fact that the appellant has proved with evidence that the expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of appellants business.

3. As common grounds are involved in all the years under consideration with respect to all the three companies, all the appeals were heard together and are now disposed by this consolidated order.

4. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. Facts in brief are that assessee is engaged in the business of advertising agency. Return for A.Y.2007-08 in the case of Concept Communication Ltd was e- filed on 8/11/2007 declaring income of Rs.5,96,75,194/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under the scrutiny norms and notices u/s. 143(2) was duly served. The A.O. framed the assessment order u/s.143(3) on 20.7.2009 assessing the total income at Rs. 5,97,35,860/-.

5. On 22/11/2011 survey Proceedings were carried out in the case of assessee Group on the basis of statement of one Mr. Jignesh Patel Statement of Mr. Parag Sanghvi, CFO of the assessee Company was recorded during the course of survey. In his reply to Question No.4 he stated that assessee Co. has taken accommodation entries from bogus Entities as named in the reply for AY 2007-2008 to 2011-12. Thereafter, statement of Shri Vivek Suchanti, Managing Director of the assessee Co. was recorded. In his reply to Question No.4 he also stated that assessee Co. has taken accommodation entries from bogus Entities and in order to buy peace of mind, to avoid protracted litigation and penal consequences as per the Income tax Act, 1961, he offered the following as the additional income in the respective companies Asst. Year Name of the Additional company Income (Rs.) 2007-08 Concept 11,92,65,022 Communication Ltd.
2008-09 Concept 15,34,75,543
Communication Ltd