9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (9) TMI 838X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BHAT MR. R.V. EASWAR JJ. Appellant Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. Appellant: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel. Respondent: Mr. S. Krishnan, Advocate. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J: (OPEN COURT) 1. The Revenue is aggrieved in these appeals by orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("Tribunal", for short) and they are disposed of by this common judgment since the subject matter of these appeals is common. The question of law sought to be urged is whether the Tribunal fell into error in not remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for providing opportunity to the assessee to furnish relevant and material documents instead of deleting the addition. 2. Br ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Further, the very statement forming the basis of the additions, i.e., the statement of Shri B. M. Gupta, was never provided to the assessee. The assessee was thus never confronted with the material on which the additions were based. The action of the AO was, therefore, hit by the principles of natural justice. The assessee was condemned unheard. 3. The Revenue relies upon the recent decision of the Supreme Court reported as ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi, (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). In this case the Court had disapproved the approach of the concerned High Court which set-aside an order of reassessment on the ground of the assessee not having been given opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness. The relevant observations of the Supreme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench judgment in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein the Court had then very presciently observed as follows: - As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law, but there the agreement ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 23 of the Act, the Income-tax Officer is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
