TMI Blog2009 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the respondent. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by: J.S.KHEHAR J. - The respondent-assessee filed his income-tax return for the assessment year 1996-97 on 30.4.2003. The Assessing Officer on examining the same passed an order under section 143/147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, on 31.3.2004, wherein, while completing the assessment, he made three additions to the declared income of the respondent-assessee, namely, a sum of Rs.2,12,750 allegedly earned by the assessee as a consequence of purchase/sale of shares, a sum of Rs.1,03,317 alleged to be unexplained credits found in the bank account of the respondent-assessee, as also a sum of Rs.30,000 allegedly paid by the respondent-assessee for the purchase of a plot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee was accepted by the Commissioner of Income (Appeals) by an order dated 15.9.2004. The aforesaid appellate authority arrived at the conclusion, that it was imperative for the Assessing Officer to allow the respondent-assessee to cross-examine all the persons whose statements were recorded at his back, specially because they had formed the basis of arriving at the conclusion that additional income earned by the respondent-assessee, had not been depicted in the return filed by him. 5. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) dated 15.9.2004, the Revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. For the same reasons, as had been d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if some procedural defect had been found by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), as also by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, rather than negating the entire action taken by the Revenue, the appellate authorities should have annulled the procedural defect and remanded the matter for redetermination from the stage when the defect made the subsequent determination unacceptable in law. 9. We find merit in the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Assessing Officer had failed to afford an opportunity to the respondent-assessee to cross-examine the persons whose statements were recorded by him, before passing the assessment order under section 143/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 31.3.2004. The action o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
