9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 989X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is an individual earning income from house property and other sources. Return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 filed on 30.07.2013 declaring income of Rs. 8,80,350/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 22.09.2017, based on the information received on the basis of search conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 21.09.2012 at Garha Group and Apollo Group, Indore, alleging that 'on-money' of Rs. 36,46,175/- paid by assessee in cash for purchasing a plot of land from M/s Rani Agro Pvt. Ltd. In reply to notice u/s 148 of the Act return of income was filed on 01.09.2018 declaring same income of Rs. 8,80,350/- as declared in the original return. 3. During the assessment proceeding carri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eedings at the premises of seller of property and thus the proceedings ought to have been invoked under Section 153C of the Act. Accordingly the Appellant prays that the order be held invalid and directed to be quashed. 3.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding the action of AO as invalid in not providing the third party external information based on which the case has been reopened. Accordingly the Appellant prays that the basis on which exercise has been carried out is in violation of principles of natural justice the assessment be held to be invalid and directed to be quashed. 4.On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the acti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT, Central Jaipur vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda iv. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 92015) 281 CTR 241(SC) 7. Per contra Ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the finding of both lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. As regards ground No.1 to 3 challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings we find that there was specific information received by the ld.AO on the basis of search conducted in some other cases. The seized documents revealed the details of assessee having transacted with the searched parties and the same formed the basis for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act. 9. Under these given facts, we are of the view that Ld. CIT(A) has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of admission of Garha Group of Indore and Apollo Group, it has to be concluded that appellant has paid the on-money which is also based on various incriminating documents found during the course of search. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to reopen the case under section 147 of the IT Act on the basis of various incriminating documents and statement filed by Graha Group before the Settlement Commission admitting the on-money received from various person including the appellant under consideration. The notice u/s 148 of the IT Act 1961 after due approval by Pr. CIT, Indore. I don't find any infirmity in issue of notice for reopening the case. The Assessing Officer has not been debarred by law to issue notice u/s 148 ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... making addition in the hands of assessee based on 3rd party statement/evidence cannot withstand unless proper opportunity of cross examination is provided to the assessee. For this proposition we find support from the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court held as under: Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned in the priced list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the adjudicating authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. Para7 If the testimony of these two witness is discredited, there was no material with the department of the basis of which it could justify its action as the statement of the aforesaid two witnesses was the only basis of issuing the show cause notice. Para8 Conclusion: Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
