TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1680X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of law that statement or the evidence which is being relied upon by the AO for making the addition in the hands of assessee, the same should be confronted to the assessee and the assessee should be allowed to cross-examine the witness in this regard. It is quite evident that statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi was relied on for making the addition, but assessee was never allowed to cross-examine him. AO was not justified in making addition in the hands of assessee, without allowing the assessee to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi, whose statement was relied upon for making the above additions. Set aside the order of CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter to the file of AO with a direction to first confront the statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akes the order totally bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 3.2 The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has instead of quashing the impugned order, has just confirmed the order of Assessing Officer without properly considering the fact and circumstances of the case, arguments of the appellant and the law applicable. 3.3. In any case and without prejudice, the orders passed by the authorities below being contrary to binding dictum of the jurisdictional High Court are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. 4. The assessing officer had in any case, erred in treating a sum of ₹ 5,42,863/- being sale consideration received on sale of shares as 'Income from other sources' and the learned Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve to be rejected in toto. 6. The appellant had actually sold shares through demat account and had earned Capital Gain thereon and same needs to be accepted as such. 7. The appellant denies the liability to pay interest. The interest having been levied erroneously is to be deleted. 8. In view of the above and other grounds to be adduced at the time of hearing it is requested that the impugned order be quashed or at least the income from long Term Capital Gain earned on sale of shares as claimed exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the appellant be accepted, the assessment of sale consideration received on sale of shares as Income from Other Sources be deleted and the interest levied be also deleted. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no finding with regard to the supply of statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi to the assessee. Moreover, nothing is available on record, wherefrom it could be inferred that assessee was ever allowed to cross-examine Mr. Mukesh Choksi. It is settled position of law that statement or the evidence which is being relied upon by the AO for making the addition in the hands of assessee, the same should be confronted to the assessee and the assessee should be allowed to cross-examine the witness in this regard. 6. From a careful perusal of the orders of lower authorities, it is quite evident that statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi was relied on for making the addition, but assessee was never allowed to cross-examine him. In these circumst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
