nformation was received from the Investigation Wing by the AO that during search operations carried out at the premises of a entry operator by the name of Shri Praveen Agarwal, evidence was found which showed that the assessee had booked bogus expenses amounting to Rs. 4,38,33,222. Ledger copies of the assessee-company found in the books of companies run by the entry operator were also forwarded by the Investigation Wing. The entry operator gave a statement that the expenses had not been incurred and only entries provided. This information was conveyed to the assessee’s Authorised Representative vide order sheet entry dt. 15th March, 2013. He was also given a copy of the ledger accounts of the assessee appearing in the books of Shri Praveen Agarwal’s companies. The assessee’s Authorised Representative filed a written submission. In this it was stated that the expenses were genuine and statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal could not lead to any inference that the transactions were bogus. I have considered the matter. The AO has not looked into these expenses and verified their genuineness. The assessment is therefore, erroneous with regard to this issue also and has caused prejudice to the interests of Revenue. I, therefore, direct the AO to take up the matter at the time of reassessment to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the expenses. Information received from the Investigation Wing should be considered while passing the assessment." It is quite evident therefore that Mr. Praveen Agarwal’s statement was apparently a part of the record that persuaded the CIT to direct the AO to conduct a fresh enquiry. The statement was not provided to the assessee. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court inAmitabh Bachchan’scase (supra), the CIT was under an obligation to provide that statement. Consequently, it is held that the order to that extent cannot be sustained. The matter is accordingly directed to be gone into afresh by the CIT who will in the remanded proceedings provide a copy of the statement of Mr. Praveen Agarwal and any other material that he chooses to rely upon and after hearing the objections of the assessee, proceed to make the final order. It is clarified that if the statement (of Mr. Praveen Agarwal or anyone else) is denied and a cross-examination is demanded, that can be the appropriate subject-matter of enquiry by the AO. nformation was received from the Investigation Wing by the AO that during search operations carried out at the premises of a entry operator by the name of Shri Praveen Agarwal, evidence was found which showed that the assessee had booked bogus expenses amounting to Rs. 4,38,33,222. Ledger copies of the assessee-company found in the books of companies run by the entry operator were also forwarded by the Investigation Wing. The entry operator gave a statement that the expenses had not been incurred and only entries provided. This information was conveyed to the assessee’s Authorised Representative vide order sheet entry dt. 15th March, 2013. He was also given a copy of the ledger accounts of the assessee appearing in the books of Shri Praveen Agarwal’s companies. The assessee’s Authorised Representative filed a written submission. In this it was stated that the expenses were genuine and statement of Shri Praveen Agarwal could not lead to any inference that the transactions were bogus. I have considered the matter. The AO has not looked into these expenses and verified their genuineness. The assessment is therefore, erroneous with regard to this issue also and has caused prejudice to the interests of Revenue. I, therefore, direct the AO to take up the matter at the time of reassessment to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the expenses. Information received from the Investigation Wing should be considered while passing the assessment." It is quite evident therefore that Mr. Praveen Agarwal’s statement was apparently a part of the record that persuaded the CIT to direct the AO to conduct a fresh enquiry. The statement was not provided to the assessee. In terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court inAmitabh Bachchan’scase (supra), the CIT was under an obligation to provide that statement. Consequently, it is held that the order to that extent cannot be sustained. The matter is accordingly directed to be gone into afresh by the CIT who will in the remanded proceedings provide a copy of the statement of Mr. Praveen Agarwal and any other material that he chooses to rely upon and after hearing the objections of the assessee, proceed to make the final order. It is clarified that if the statement (of Mr. Praveen Agarwal or anyone else) is denied and a cross-examination is demanded, that can be the appropriate subject-matter of enquiry by the AO.