9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view. Cross-examination is allowed by procedural rules and evidently also by the rules of natural justice. We set aside the order of the CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order after examining the parties mentioned and allowing cross-examination to the assessee. It is the duty of the assessee to file before the AO the recent address of the above parties. Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No. 5052/MUM/2016 - - - Dated:- 25-4-2018 - SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) For The Assessee : Mr. S.M. Makhija, AR For Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. L.P. Traders 27210283994V 131061 2. Shree Amaaya Enterprises 27240257545V 538125 3. S.P. Corporation 27270583788V 54705 4. Dev Enterprises 27450526556V 798105 5. Meridian Trading Co. 27580726450V 568890 6. Sun Shine International 27880622010V 237510 7. Amrish Traders 27960764459V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods receiving note, octroi receipt etc. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the abovementioned parties asking them to produce the details of transactions they had with the assessee. But these notices were returned unserved by the postal authorities. Therefore, the AO treated the purchases made from the above parties as unsubstantiated and made an addition of ₹ 25,74,768/-. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision in Vijay Proteins Ltd. v. ACIT 58 ITD 428 (Ahd), Sanjay Oil Cakes Industries v. CIT (2008) 316 ITR 274 (Guj), restricted the disallowance to ₹ 6,43,642/- (@ 25% of ₹ 25,74,568/-). 6. Before us, the Ld. coun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hand, the Ld. DR submits that the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were returned back as unserved by the postal authorities. These notices carried the address provided by the assessee to the AO. Also it is stated that the assessee failed to file before the AO the relevant documents such as transportation bills, delivery challans, goods received note, octroi receipt etc. Thus, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) estimating the profit @ 25% on the said purchases of ₹ 25,74,568/-. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. The reasons for our decisions are given below. In the case-laws referred to by the Ld. counsel of the assessee, the applicability of cross-examinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine concerned witness. In a similar case of a beneficiary of accommodation entries, their Lordships of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Om Vinyls P. Ltd. vs. ITO [Writ Petition (L) No. 3114 of 2014] have observed that it would be open to the assessee to raise all permissible defences and also to insist on cross-examination of the persons who have made a statement implicating the assessee in having participated in taking accommodation entries. In view of the above factual scenario, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above issue and restore the matter to the file of the AO to make a de novo order after examining the parties mentioned at para 3 hereinbefore a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
