9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (2) TMI 756X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer did not follow the Rules of principle of natural justice, and did not grant opportunity of cross-examination before relying upon the statement of the persons and made the addition. 4. Shri M.G. Patel, ld. counsel for the assessee, first advanced argument on his preliminary objection pertaining to non-grant of proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, first, we take up the second ground of appeal. 5. The brief facts of the case are that a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of M/s. Gokul Corporation and Shri Suresh A. Patel on 22-09-1995. During the course of search, a file containing loose papers was found and seized vide recovery memo 'A-I' from the residence of Shri Suresh A. Patel. At page No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and documents are very authentic evidences as they were found during the course of search and some important notings showing transaction outside the books of account were made on it. These are very important evidences to be considered under sub-section (4A) of section 132 of the IT Act. Also Shri Suresh A. Patel and Shri Manoj Vadodaria have admitted in their statement that Rs. 77 lakhs have been paid to the assessee for purchase of land on behalf of Shri Govindbhai C. Patel. 11. Question of allowing examination of Shri Govind C. Patel alongwith his books of account for verification does not arise at all as the transactions are made out of the books of account. Further, Shri Suresh A. Patel and Shri Manoj Vadodaria have admitted the cash ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iece of evidence. Though entries maintained regularly on day-to-day basis in pursuance of a continuous and a uniform practice would be admissible, but being entry of a 3rd concern, straightway they cannot charge the assessee with the liabilities. These materials, the entries as well as the statement of the person recorded under section 132(4) of the Act, 1961 can only be used against the assessee after providing due opportunity of hearing to assessee to rebut them. The statement of a person recorded from the back of the assessee can be used against him, if opportunity to cross-examination was granted. The order of the ld. Assessing Officer is lacking in this regard, therefore, it deserves to be set aside. However, we are of the opinion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
