TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to cross-examine the witnesses who have deposed against the assessee despite having made the specific request for it both before the Assessing Officer & CIT(A). In Krishanchand Chellaram (1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT) wherein laid down that the income tax authorities are bound to accede to the request of cross-examination and should provide the incriminating evidence to the assessee to controvert the same. AO has not acceded to the plea of assessee in this behalf, therefore we set aside the order and direct the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter after providing the incriminating material used against the assessee for re-opening the assessment for the relevant year under consideration and any other evidences against it an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirming the addition. 4. That the Ld CIT(A) has not distinguished the facts of the case laws relied upon by the assessee before confirming the addition . 5. That in any case and in view of the matter, order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. ITO in respect of addition of ₹ 5000,000/- u/s 68 is bad in law and unjustified. 6. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of the appeal at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee filed its return of income for the Assessment Year 2001-02 declaring an income of ₹ 76,247/- on 31.10.2001. On the basis of an information received from DIT (Investigation) that the assessee company h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 5,00,000/- vide cheque No. 875501 had been shown as refund of share application money from Ganpriya Exports Ltd. on 23.02.2001 and not from M/s. Avinashi Selling Agency (P) Ltd.; Assessee also claimed that the said receipt of ₹ 5,00,000/- cannot be termed as accommodation entry because it was nothing but the refund of assessee s own money, which was advanced to Ganpriya Exports Ltd. in earlier year , FY 1995-96. The assessee therefore pleaded that if the department is acting on the information received from the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, then that information/ evidence may be provided to it, on which the Investigation wing has formed its opinion and the assessee be given an opportunity to cross examine th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ltd on whose testimony the department issued notice u/s 148 of the Act to the assessee despite the assessee s plea to the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee company to cross-examine the deponent who had accused it in order to test the veracity of the testimony and to elicit the truth from the witness. 6. The ld AR has cited the case of Gudhutur Bros. Vs. ITO (1960) 40 ITR 298 wherein it has been held that denial of natural justice is only a irregularity and the proceedings would start from the state at which the irregularity intervened. Therefore, according to the ld AR the case may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer so that the witness on whose evidence, the assessment was re-opened could be cross-examine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion Wing that M/s . Avinash Selling Agency Pvt Ltd is an entry operator and that vide cheque No. 875501 dated 23.02.2001 an amount of ₹ 5,00,000/- was remitted in the account of the assessee, the Assessing Officer re-opened the assessment. However, the assessee s consistent stand from the inception itself was that the cheque No. 875501 dated 23.02.2001 was issued by M/s Ganpriya Exports Ltd. on account of return of share application money which was paid to it in the FY 1995-96 and to support this fact, the assessee produced copy of the ledger account of share application money (Ganpriya Export) for the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2001. However, in the assessment order neither we find any mention about the said explanation and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
