TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and material collected at the back of the assessee, cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishan Chand Chellaram [ 1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] and Andaman Timber Industries [ 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] - CIT(A) without any justification has rejected the contention of assessee that is not an absolute right of assessee to cross-examine the statement of Smt. Jaya Sharma. These facts clearly disentitle the Revenue to use the statement of Smt. Jaya Sharma recorded under section 131 of the I.T. Act in evidence against the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and direct that such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. A.O. also referred to statement of husband of the assessee recorded during the course of survey in which he has admitted to have sold the property to M/s. Mapple Destination Dreambuilt P. Ltd., and received the cash amount. The present case is with respect to purchase of property of Dera Mandi, Chattarpur, New Delhi from the Seller-Smt. Jaya Sharma. Therefore, the statement of husband of assessee is not relevant to the matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were paid in cash and balance amount of ₹ 1.05 crores were paid through cheque. Smt. Jaya Sharma furnished a letter dated 03.07.2014 addressed to DDIT (Inv.) that she would pay taxes on that. Accordingly, reasons were recorded for reopening of the assessment and notice under section 148 was issued. The assessee filed letter before A.O. intimating that original return filed on 21.07.2009 may be treated as return having filed in response to notice under section 148 of the I.T. Act. The assessee filed objections to the reopening of the assessment before A.O. which have been rejected. 3.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to provide complete details of sale / purchase of the properties along with documentary evidences and source of investment. The assessee has stated that she had purchased the property for ₹ 1.05 crores and has not paid any other amount for purchase of this agricultural land of Village Dera Mandi, Chattarpur, New Delhi. The A.O. did not accept the contention of assessee in view of statement recorded of Smt. Jaya Sharma on 02.07.2014 under section 131 of the I.T. Act that assessee and her husband have paid cash to her. The A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssment have been done under section 143(3), but, he was not able to furnish copy of such assessment order under section 143(3). Learned Counsel for the Assessee referred to the reasons recorded by the A.O. for reopening of the assessment copy of which is filed at page-7 of the PB in which A.O. has specifically mentioned that in the case of assessee for the assessment year under appeal no Order under section 143(3) was passed. In view of these facts, it is clear that the Order in the case of husband of the assessee Dated 20.01.2021 would be of no help to the assessee. Therefore, the contention of assessee is rejected that the issue of reopening of the assessment is covered in favour of the assessee. No other submissions have been made with regard to reopening of the assessment as to how the reopening is unjustified in the matter. Considering the above and that Counsel for Assessee have not been able to furnish any Order under section 143(3) in the case of assessee passed prior to reopening of the assessment, therefore, we are of the view that the issue is not covered by the Order of the Tribunal Dated 20.01.2021 (supra). This ground of appeal of assessee is accordingly dismissed. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s recorded under section 131 of the I.T. Act in which she has admitted to have received cash amount on executing sale deed in favour of the assessee and her husband and agreed to pay taxes thereon, therefore, such statement is relevant to make addition against the assessee. He has also submitted that A.O. has specifically mentioned in the assessment order that statement of husband of the assessee was recorded during the course of survey in which he has admitted to have sold the property to M/s. Mapple Destination Dreambuilt P. Ltd., and substantial amount was paid through cash. Similarly A.O. has referred to statement of Shri Rakesh Sejwal, Manager of Lingaya s Society who have also confirmed of collecting cash of ₹ 5.41 crores on sale of property on behalf of assessee and her husband. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that these statements are sufficient to establish that assessee and her husband have paid cash on account of entering into sale transactions. Therefore, addition is wholly justified. The Ld. D.R. also submitted that retraction statement of Smt. Jaya Sharma-Seller is of no consequence in the matter. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material collected at the back of the assessee, cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon the Judgments of Hon ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC). The Ld. CIT(A) without any justification has rejected the contention of assessee that is not an absolute right of assessee to cross-examine the statement of Smt. Jaya Sharma. These facts clearly disentitle the Revenue to use the statement of Smt. Jaya Sharma recorded under section 131 of the I.T. Act in evidence against the assessee. Therefore, we set aside the Orders of the authorities below and direct that such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. 8.1. The A.O. also referred to statement of husband of the assessee recorded during the course of survey in which he has admitted to have sold the property to M/s. Mapple Destination Dreambuilt P. Ltd., and received the cash amount. The present case is with respect to purchase of property of Dera Mandi, Chattarpur, New Delhi from the Seller-Smt. Jaya Sharma. Therefore, the statement of husband of assessee is not relevant to the matter in issue. Further the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
