Held that the AO got tangible material in the shape of information from Director General of IT (Inv.). giving list of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries, which included the assessee’s name with its address. Reassessment proceeding is held to be valid. Held that the Proprietor of Mohit International  having given the statement that the concern though apparently engaged in the business of diamond trading was actually providing accommodation entries and that it was actually controlled by Praveen Kumar Jain  and the said Parveen Kumar Jain   having also admitted before the authorities that he was engaged in giving accommodation entries through companies under his control which were mere paper concerns and also provided the names and addresses of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries which included the name of the assessee. it is clear that the alleged loan received by the assessee from Mohit International  was a mere accommodation entry. Addition was confirmed. Tribunal also held that   the assessee was well aware about the case made out against it and it has placed on record the ledger extracts, bank statement, confirmation, PAN card, IT return and annual accounts of the lender in support of genuineness of the transaction, it cannot be said that the assessee was oblivious of the statements of the lender which were used against it and therefore, there was no violation of principles of natural justice on the ground that the incriminating statements of the lender and the entry operator were not supplied to the assessee, since the assessee did not make any request for allowing cross-examination of the said persons, absence of opportunity for such Cross examination cannot be a ground for quashing the assessment orders.  (AY.2007-08)