TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] - decided in favour of assessee - ITA No. 4481/DEL/2018, ITA No. 4482/DEL/2018, ITA No. 4483/DEL/2018 And ITA No. 4484/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 3-11-2018 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Assessee : Shri Sandeep Sapra, Advocate For The Revenue : Shri SL Anuragi, Sr. DR. ORDER These 04 appeals filed by the different assessee are preferred against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-13, New Delhi dated 25.4.2018 all pertaining to assessment year 2014-15. Since the common issues involved in these appeals, hence, the impugned order has been passed in all these appeals by the ld. CITA(A), therefore, for the sake of convenience, we are consolidated these appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 4841/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) AJAY GOEL VS. ITO. 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his return of income on 16.10.2014 declaring income of ₹ 8,26,860/- and the same was selected for scrutiny in CASS. Notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act ) on 22.9.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of Vikrant Kayan and has held that 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, which is in violation of principle of natural justice and against the law settled in the decision rendered by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber vs. CIT decided in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. Hence, he requested to follow the SMC Bench decision in the case of Jyoti Gupta (Supra) and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the assessment as well as impugned order and the reply filed by the assessee before the AO in response to the show cause notice. I find that the AO has completed the assessment by relying on the Investigation Report, but the copy of the Investigation Report was not provided to the assessee, despite request made by him in his letter dated 23.12.2016, which is against the law settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 71 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o cross examine a person on whose statement the Assessing Officer relied, it would amount to deficiency, amounting to a denial of opportunity and therefore violation of principles of natural justice. In that case CIT (A) had deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer had failed to provide copies of seized material to the assessee nor had he allowed the assessee to cross-examine the party concerned. The Division Bench held that once there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 295 ITR 105 CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd.(Jurisdictional Delhi HC) , in which it was held as under: Even if the strict rules of evidence may not apply, the basic principle of natural justice would apply to the facts of the case, assessing officer had placed reliance upon the report for deciding the matter against the assessee. The report could not be automatically accepted particularly where there was a challenge to it and the assessee had sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to crossexamine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
