9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Appellant for the Assessment Year 1983-84 ?" 3. It will be necessary to briefly set out the facts of the case : The Original assessment was completed in January 1986 under Section 143(1) of the Act. It was later reassessed under an Amnesty Scheme in January 1987. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) learnt from the appraisal report in the case of one Sewa Charitable Trust that during relevant period the assessee appeared to have taken a bogus hawala loan of Rs. 1,45,000/- from one M/s. Nuwan Investment and Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. (Nuwan) whereby the assessee introduced his unaccounted funds in the form of bogus loan from Nuwan. A notice under Section 148 came to be issued but only in July 1993. The assessee sought reasons and also queried with the AO whether permission of superior authorities have been taken prior to issuance of notice. The AO contended that notice was issued within time as per amended Act of 1987 under Section 149 (1)(b)(iii) read with Section 151(2) of the Act. The AO found that there was no evidence of a bonafide loan transaction between the assessee and Nuwan. The said amount was therefore added to the assessee's income. In appeal before the Commissi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to uphold addition of Rs. 1,45,000/-. Mr. Tralshawalla then submitted that even otherwise and even assuming that the assessee was required to obtain a confirmation letter which he had failed to do, no proper opportunity was given to the assessee at the time of reassessment inasmuch as the AO had admittedly acted on the appraisal report in the case of M/s. Sewa Charitable Trust and had relied upon some evidence collected in that behalf including statements on oath said to have been made on behalf of persons whose identity was not disclosed. 7. Accordingly, upon receipt of communication dated 24th January, 1996 a copy of which appears at Exhibit-F calling upon the assessee to reply before the next date of hearing i.e. 5th February, 1996, the assessee vide its Chartered Accountant's letter dated 15th February, 1996 (Exhibit-G) pointed out that the amount of Rs. 1,45,000/- cannot be added under Section 68 of the Act on the basis of third party confession without allowing the assessee to meet the revenue's case including by cross examining such deponent. He requested the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) to provide copies of the statements recorded by the revenue as a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xcise, Kolkata in Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 dated 2nd September, 2015; Ranchi Handloom Emporium v. Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. 235 ITR 604 (Pat). 10. We do not have benefit of hearing the revenue. At the time of admission the Revenue had waived service. After this matter came to be admitted, on several occasions counsel on behalf of respondent had appeared and had undertaken to file Vakalatnama interalia on 24th July, 2008, 4th August 2008, 28th August 2008 and even thereafter on 29th September 2008. No appearance has been filed till date. Even after the matter first appeared for final disposal on 10th August 2015 although Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Advocate for the revenue had appeared and stated that there has been a reallocation of briefs and revenue would be represented and the matter came to be adjourned on 10th August 2015 to 13th October 2015 and thereafter when once again at the instance of the revenue time was granted but since then on 8th June 2016 and 9th June 2016 when this matter was taken up for hearing, none appeared for the revenue. 11. We have therefore proceeded to hear and decide the matter unassisted by the revenue. In the course of his submissions Mr. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and therefore violation of principles of natural justice. In that case CIT (A) had deleted addition made by the Assessing Officer since the Assessing Officer had failed to provide copies of seized material to the assessee nor had he allowed the assessee to cross-examine the party concerned. The Division Bench held that once there is violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as seized material was not provided to the assessee nor was given opportunity of cross examining the person whose statement was being used against the assessee the order could not be sustained. 15. In M/s.Andaman Timber Industries (supra) the Supreme Court found that the Adjudicating Authority had not granted an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the witnesses and the tribunal merely observed that the cross examination of the dealers in that case, could not have brought out any material which would not otherwise be in possession of the appellant-assessee. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order and observed that 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 such as was done in that cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
