9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1758 - AT - Income TaxAssessment u/s 153A - denial of natural justice - Revenue Authorities have not provided the statement based on which addition is made and not providing opportunity of cross examination - HELD THAT - Keeping in view of the assessment order passed by the AO we have not seen from the proceedings of the AO regarding providing any statement of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal to the assessee and providing opportunity of cross examination of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal to the assessee meaning thereby the Revenue Authorities have not provided the statement of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal to the assessee and also did not provide the opportunity of cross examination of Sh. Pradeep Kumar Jindal on which basis the addition has been made and the provisions of Section 153A of the Act have been wrongly applied in the case of the assessee. Therefore we do not find any cogency in the arguments advanced by the Ld. CIT(DR) and the case laws cited by him in support of his contention are not applicable here. - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdictional Assail 2. Cross Examination Angle 3. Independent Corroboration Missing 4. Assessee’s Own Deposition Ignored 5. Merits of the Cases Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdictional Assail: The primary issue was whether the assessment orders passed under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 were valid when no incriminating material was found during the search of the assessee's premises. The Tribunal emphasized that the additions made were solely based on the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal, obtained during a separate search, and not on any material found during the search of the assessee's premises. The Tribunal relied on various judgments, including the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Pr. CIT vs. Subhash Khattar and ITAT Delhi's decision in DCIT vs. Smt. Shivali Mahajan, which held that completed assessments could only be interfered with based on incriminating material found during the search of the assessee’s premises. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders were invalid as they contravened the provisions of Section 153C, which should have been invoked instead. 2. Cross Examination Angle: The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not provided with the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal nor given an opportunity to cross-examine him, which was a violation of principles of natural justice. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, which held that not allowing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were the basis of the order amounted to a serious flaw and violation of natural justice. The Tribunal found that denying the cross-examination of Pradeep Kumar Jindal invalidated the assessment orders. 3. Independent Corroboration Missing: The Tribunal emphasized that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was solely based on the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal without any independent corroboration. The Tribunal referred to the Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision in Harjeev Aggarwal, which held that statements recorded during search operations could not be the sole basis for making additions unless corroborated by other material discovered during the search. The Tribunal concluded that the absence of independent corroboration rendered the additions unsustainable. 4. Assessee’s Own Deposition Ignored: The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer ignored the assessee's own statements and evidence submitted, which supported the assessee's stand that the transactions were genuine. The Tribunal criticized the revenue authorities for not considering the copious evidence filed by the assessee and for relying solely on the statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal. The Tribunal found that the authorities failed to objectively appreciate the evidence provided by the assessee. 5. Merits of the Cases: On the merits, the Tribunal found that the authorities did not discharge the burden of proving that the transactions were bogus or sham. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had provided detailed evidence, including bank statements, demat account details, and trade invoices, to support the genuineness of the transactions. The Tribunal criticized the authorities for relying on extraneous reasoning and not addressing the core issue. The Tribunal also noted that the reliance on the Delhi High Court's decision in Dayawanti was misplaced as the operative effect of that decision was stayed by the Apex Court. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the different assessees, quashing the assessment orders and deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to legal provisions and principles of natural justice, particularly the need for independent corroboration and the right to cross-examination. The Tribunal's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the facts, evidence, and relevant legal precedents.
|
