TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the course of search under section 132(4) in which, he has admitted to have received donation/capitation fees in cash. However, the assessment order is silent if any right of cross-examination have been allowed on behalf of the assessee at the assessment stage. CIT(A) at the appellate stage asked the A.O. for production of Dr. P. Mahalingam and allow an opportunity to the assessee for cross-examination. The A.O. issued summons to Dr. P. Mahalingam at the appellate stage for providing an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine his statement, but, Dr. P. Mahalingam did not appear at the appellate stage, therefore, the fact remained that assessee has been denied right to make cross-examination to the statement of Dr. P. Mahali ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 27.06.2013 in Santosh Group of Institutions and Dr. P. Mahalingam. During the search, certain documents/books of account were seized from their premises and Administrative Block at Ghaziabad which reveal receipt of donation/capitation fees over and above the regular course fees paid in cash by parents of the students for taking admission in various medical courses. During the course of recording statement under section 132(4) relevant seized document were confronted to Dr. P. Mahalingam, Chairman of the Trust in which he has categorically admitted of accepting donation/capitation fees in cash and offered these unaccounted money for taxation in relevant assessment years. The A.O. on the basis of such information found that assessee has alre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ross-examination is not absolute right of the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) even on merit confirmed the addition and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 3. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties through video conferencing and perused the material on record. 4. The assessee in the present appeal has challenged the reopening of the assessment under section 147/148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and addition of ₹ 27 lakhs on merits. 4.1. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that no right of cross-examination have been allowed to the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam, therefore, addition on merit is wholly unjustified. 5. On the other hand, Ld. D.R. relied upon the Orders of the authorities below. 6. We have c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, but, Dr. P. Mahalingam did not appear at the appellate stage, therefore, the fact remained that assessee has been denied right to make cross-examination to the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam. It is well settled Law that any adverse material collected at the back of the assessee when not confronted and that if any statement is recorded by the A.O./Revenue Department at the back of the assessee and such statement is not allowed for cross-examination on behalf of the assessee, such material cannot be considered against the assessee in the Income Tax proceedings and such material/statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
