TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 120X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... examination and wrongly upheld the AO’s order, which is not proper. Exactly on the similar facts and circumstances in the case of Smt. Jyoti Gupta vs. ITO [2018 (11) TMI 1353 - ITAT NEW DELHI] wherein, the SMC Bench has considered the statement of Vikrant Kayan and has held that since the impugned addition was made on the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan without providing any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the same and Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same ground, which is in violation of principle of natural justice and against the law laid down in the case of Andaman Timber vs. CIT [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2789/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 29-11-2018 - Shri H.S. Sidhu, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TO, Ward 62(1), New Delhi. Accordingly, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued in this case on 23.11.2016. In compliance thereof, the A.R. for the assessee attended the case from time to time and furnished written submissions, which were examined by the AO. AO observed that assessee is an individual and during the relevant year, assessee has earned income under the head salary, income from business and profession, capital gains and other sources. The AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act at an income of 44,68,790/-. Against the assessment order, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his impugned order dated 15.2.2018 has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... H) (2015) 229 Taxman 173. iii) Balbir Chand Maini vs. CIT (2011) 12 taxmann.com 276 (P H). iv) Usha Chandresh Shah vs., ITO (ITAT Mumbai) (2014) 2014-TIOL-1459-ITAT Mum. v) Ratnakar M. Pujari vs. ITO (ITAT, Mumbai) (2016) 2016-TIOL-1746-ITAT-Mum) vi) Abhimanyu Soin vs. ACIT, Circle VII, Ludhiana ITAT Chandigarh Income Tax 2018-LL-0418-97 18.4.2018. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the assessment as well as impugned order and the submissions filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). I find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR are on the merits of the case, however, the ground argued before the Tribunal is relating to confirmation of addition which was made on the basis of materi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bench vide its order dated 06.11.2018 passed in ITA No. 3510/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) in the case of Smt. Jyoti Gupta vs. ITO as under:- 13. Merely on the strength of statement of third party i.e. Shri Vikrant Kayan cannot justi fy the impugned additions. Moreso, when specific request was made by the assessee for allowing cross examination was denied by the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority also did not consider it fit to allow cross-examination. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006 wherein it has been held as under: According to us, not allowing the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of crossexamination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the crossexamination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
