9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is right in law and on facts in restoring the addition of Rs.30,16,000/- deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the addition was made on the basis of statement of third party unverified by way of cross examination, in spite of specific direction of CIT(A) in previous appellate order to allow cross-examination ? 2. Whether the ITAT is right in law on facts in restoring the addition of Rs.30,16,000/- deleted by the CIT(A), by directing the legal heir of the Respondent to file affidavit regarding facts of which he was not personally aware, and in relying upon a part of sentence from in the said affidavit ? 3. Whether the ITAT was right in reversing the order of the CIT(A) without dealing with the detailed reasoning of the CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh Shah and late father of present appellant had jointly signed the said document. Statement of Shri Hitesh Shah when recovered u/s. 132(4) of the I.T.Act, that revealed that he received the impugned amount from the present appellant and further revealed that the same reflected the liability he owed to the appellant. 4. On the ground that no opportunity was granted for cross-examining Shri Hitesh Shah, this order was challenged by the appellant before the CIT(Appeals) by the appellant. Twice the matter travelled to CIT(Appeals). 5. In the first round, CIT(Appeals) instructed the Assessing Officer to provide copies of statement of Shri Hitesh Shah recorded during the search to the appellant and all those papers on which reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heirs of the appellant who was four years old at the time of search made of the premise. 11. Learned counsel Shri Kirtikant Thaker fervently argued in support of contents of the Appeal Memo and urged that there is not a single word uttered by the Tribunal as to how the order of CIT(Appeals) is fallacious. The affidavit of the heir of appellant was meaningless according to the learned counsel considering his age on the date of occurrence and the same ought to have been discarded. He also further urged that Shri Hitesh Shah never offered himself for cross-examination and therefore, any addition made without availing appropriate opportunity to the appellant tantamounts to violating the principles of natural justice and decision render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. 15. CIT (Appeals) deleted the said addition on the ground that Shri Hitesh Shah was not offered for cross-examination. Although specific direction was given by the CIT(Appeals) to the Assessing Officer while directing de novo proceedings Mr.Hitesh Shah did not remain present personally for cross-examination. On the ground that the statement of the third party cannot be depended for making addition unless there is corroborative material for evidence in support thereof, such an addition was found sustainable by the CIT(Appeals). It also further noted that such an addition was to be taxed on substantive basis in the hands of Shri Hitesh Shah and only on the protractive basis to the income of the present appellant. It also further n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rce being less can not be taxed twice. We find that the assess has also submitted that in the assessment proceedings of Bhunuvijaysing, the same has been treated as an asset and taxed accordingly. However, the unaccounted assets as were found during the course of search represents the assets belonging to Bhunuvijaysingh to the extent of liability of Rs.30 lacs as referred to in the seized material on which neither the assessee possesses the ownership nor the assessee and any right to claim even. We therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) in deleting the impugned addition. Thus, this issue of the Revenue's appeal is dismissed." 17. As far as the present appellant is concerned, he is representing the original appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eted such an addition qua the maker of the statement while dealing with the Tax Appeal preferred by Shri Hitesh Shah by way of common order only. What has predominantly weighed with the Tribunal is the fact that the loose paper had clearly indicated the amount given by Shri Bhanuvijaysingh by way of loan. Moreover, it can be noted from the order of Tribunal that it has reproduced the material portion of CIT(Appeals) before concluding the issue and therefore, it would not be feasible to hold that Tribunal disregarded the materials or orders and acted on the extraneous consideration. On cumulative reading, there does not appear any requirement to interfere with the order of Tribunal as no question of law, much less substantial questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
