TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1270X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xamined by the assessee/his counsel. AO may accordingly be directed to facilitate such cross examination of the above witnesses of the Department at the earliest where after the assessee shall furnish his further defence/submissions in the matter failing which, the entire addition made by the learned Assessing officer on account of the alleged on money payments in the assessment years involved deserves to be deleted in toto in the interest of justice - set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as the assessee has not been provided opportunity to cross examination of the person on the basis of whose statement and the affidavit additions were made. - IT(SS)A Nos.109 & 110/Ind/2016 And ITA Nos.678/Ind/2016 - - - Dated:- 23-1-2019 - SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sumit Nema And Shri Gagan Tiwari, A.Rs For The Respondent : Smt. Ashima Gupta, D.R. ORDER PER BENCH: This bunch of 3 appeals are against different orders of the CIT(A)-3, Bhopal dated 18.3.16 pertaining to the assessment years 2007-08, 2011-12 2012-13. First we take up IT(SS)A No.109/Ind/2016 IT(SS)A No.110/Ind/2016 whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(SS)A 110/Ind/2016: 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) denied natural justice to the appellant by passing the order under appeal without acceding to the request of the appellant to facilitate cross examination of the land owners and other persons whose statements have been recorded on the back of the appellant and used against him in assessment without confronting the same and without affording an opportunity to the appellant to cross examine them. The appellate order of the Ld. CIT(A) may therefore set aside on the point at issue. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred and was totally unjustified in confirming or sustaining the addition of ₹ 10,00,000/- made by the A.O. without facilitating the cross examination of the sellers of the land and other persons whose oral statements without any documentary evidence in support has been made the basis for the addition, and after considering the outcome of such cross examination. Hence, the addition in question being unfounded, unwarranted arbitrary and totally unjustified be deleted in toto in the interest of justice. 3. The Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.R. opposed the admission of additional ground. He submitted that no view has been expressed by the Ld. CIT(A). Moreover, the assessee had participated in the proceedings. Now at this belated stage, assessee cannot be permitted to raise such ground. 4. We have heard the rival contentions. Since the assessee has raised a legal ground, which was not before the Ld. CIT(A) and moreover the judgement of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court was rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Mechmen (2016) 380 ITR 591 (MP) was not available at the time of passing of impugned order. By way of additional ground, assessee has raised an issue related to jurisdiction for making assessment u/s 153C of the Act by the assessing officer. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision on additional ground. Needless to say that Ld. CIT(A) would give sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Additional ground raised in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. We make it clear that we are not expressing our view on other grounds. In case assessee succeeds in additional ground, the other grounds would become academic only. Hence, appeal of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,13,700/- without facilitating the cross examination of the sellers of the land and other persons concerned on the basis of whose statements. On the back of the appellant with no supporting documentary evidence, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer, and after considering the outcome of such statements on cross examination. Hence, the addition in question of ₹ 56,13,700/- being unfounded, unwarranted, arbitrary, unjustified and opposed to the facts be deleted in toto. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred and was totally unjustified in sustaining the addition of ₹ 5,26,300/- without facilitating the cross examination of the sellers of the land and other persons concerned on the basis of whose statement on the back of the Appellant without confronting the same and without affording opportunity to cross examine them, the addition has been made, and after considering the outcome of such cross examination. The addition in question being opposed to natural justice be deleted in its entirety in the interest of justice. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) s order under appeal is non speaking as to how the Appellant could be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
