9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 565X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer(AO) for assessment year 2005-06 and deleting the addition of Rs.34,14,910/-, stands dismissed. 2. Briefly the facts giving rise to the appeal are that the assessee runs a proprietorship concern namely, M/s Akash Ganga Cargo Movers, which is engaged in the work of transportation of the goods. The assessee used to transport insulators which were procured from local firms namely, Premier Sanitaryware, Rani Bazar, Bikaner and Taruna Dec Home Pvt. Ltd., Bikaner. The assessee does not own any truck and therefore, he had used trucks available in the market for transportation of the goods. During the relevant assessment year assessee filed return of income on 26.10.05 declaring total income of Rs.3,35,440/-. The return was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ck owners turned up for cross examination inspite of issuance of notice to them. The CIT(A) observed that the respondent-assessee has been deprived of the basic right of confrontation . The statement of three truck owners who were cross examined were also not found relevant in view of the apparent contradiction and non denial of the outstanding dues. The CIT(A) arrived at the finding that on the basis of the material on record, AO has erred in drawing inference that outstanding liabilities of the appellant against truck payments are not genuine. Accordingly, while allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent-assessee, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made by AO as aforesaid. 6. On appeal by the Revenue, ITAT has affirmed the order passed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statements of 21 truck owners examined by him. It is pertinent to note that out of 21 truck owners examined by AO, the respondent-assessee had not shown any liability towards 6 persons. The assessee requested for cross examination of remaining 15 persons and accordingly, the notices were issued by AO to all the 15 persons, however, only 3 appeared for cross examination. Having gone through the cross examination of 2 persons namely, Shri Ramkishan and Harishchander, ITAT opined that these truck owners were not maintaining books of accounts and they must be offering the tax on their income, if any, u/s 44 AE of the Act and they may not be under an obligation to maintain the accounts. The ITAT opined that a perusal of their cross examination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
