9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 782X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould be placed upon them to the extent it is adverse to the appellant. This right to cross examine is a part of the audi altrem partem principle and the same can be denied only on strong reason to be recorded and communicated. The impugned order holding that it would have directed cross examination if it felt it was necessary, is hardly a reason in support of coming to the conclusion that no cross examination was called for in the present facts. This reason itself makes the impugned order vulnerable. Moreover, in the present facts, the appellant had also filed affidavit of the representatives of M/s Inorbit and M/s Nupur which indicates that they had received payment from the appellant for rendering of services to the appellant. These af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 4. The appellant is engaged in the business of advertisement, market research and business promotions for its clients. During the subject Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant had engaged services of M/s Inorbit Advertising and Marketing Services P. Ltd. ('Inorbit') and M/s Nupur Management Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ('Nupur') to enable them to carryout promotional and advertisement activities. The amounts of ₹ 1.15 crores paid to them was treated as expenditure to arrive at its profit while filing its return of income. This was accepted by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(1) of the Act. 5. Thereafter on 4 February 2010, the Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ives of M/s Inorbit and M/s Nupur who were not offered for cross examination. The Tribunal by the impugned order after accepting the fact that the cross examination sought by the parties was not given by the Assessing Officer proceeded to uphold the order of lower authorities. Notwithstanding the above, the impugned order holds that it is a final fact finding authority and it could direct cross examination in case it felt that material relied upon by the Assessing Officer to disallow expenses was required to be subjected to the cross examination. In view of the above, the impugned order held that denial of cross examination of the representative of M/s Inorbit and M/s Nupur has not led to breach of principle of natural justice and thus conf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o had made the statement adverse to M/s Satellite Cable TV Network Ltd. It is submitted that the facts are identical and the same test/measure as applied in case of M/s Satellite Cable TV Network Ltd should be applied in this case also. 10. Dr. Shivram submits that the appellant on coming to know of aforesaid order dated 23 May 2012 in M/s Satellite Cable TV Network of the Tribunal filed an application for rectification. However the same was dismissed by order dated 12 June 2015 of Tribunal holding that entertaining such an application would amount to review. 11. We find that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the Assessing Officer has in his order placed reliance upon the statements of representati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
