9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee to file the relevant documents/evidence before the AO. Needless to say the AO would give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before finalizing the assessment order.In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8377; 61,364/- totalling to ₹ 61,97,722/- to M/s Vir Sons. Then, the AO took into account the statement given by Shri Rejendra Jain during the course of search and seizure action u/s 132 on 03.10.2013 and arrived at a finding that Shri Jain directly or indirectly controlled various business concerns such as M/s Vitrag Jewels, Prop. Shri Mudit P. Karnawat (Ex-employee). Taking into account the above facts, the AO asked the assessee to produce Shri Karnawat for examination to prove the genuineness of transaction. The assessee failed to produce Shri Karnawat. The AO came to a finding that since the party is now assessee's witness, he ought to have produced Shri Karnawat. But he failed to do so. As the genuineness of transaction was not p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endra Jain. Ans. Sir, we are operating through a no. of business concerns of all the three nature i.e. proprietorship firm, partnership firm as well as companies in the name of various persons including our employees. But for all practical purposes, myself and Shri Surendra Jain are handling the entire business network on profit sharing basis. The name wise detail of all business concern of ours is as follows: - Proprietorship firm Name of Proprietor a. AVI Exports Rajendra S Jain (myself) b. Kalash enterprises Manish Jain c. AadiImpex Anoop Jain d. Arihant Exports Sachin Pareek e. Vitrag Jewels Mudit Karnawat (Ex-employee) f. Super Jewels Ashok Jain (Ex-employee) Partnership firm Name of Partners a. Sun Diam Rajend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... radicting anything prejudicial to their view. Cross-examination is allowed by procedural rules and evidently also by the rules of natural justice. Any witness who has been sworn on behalf of any party is liable to be crossexamined on behalf of the other party to the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Grocery Dealer AIR 1977 SC 1627, recognised the importance of oral evidence by holding that the opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of the return necessarily carry with it the right to examine witnesses and that includes equally the right to cross-examine witnesses. In ITO vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2012) 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Order of asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
