9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty also did not consider it fit to allow cross-examination. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the ratio laid down in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT 2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT) - no merit in the impugned additions. The findings of the CIT(A) are accordingly set aside. The Assessing Officer is directed to allow the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act.- decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 3510/DEL/2018 - - - Dated:- 6-11-2018 - Shri N.K. Billaiya, J. Assessee by : Shri M.P. Gupta, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Aashna Paul, Sr. DR ORDER N.K. Billaiya, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] 19, New ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kayan has accepted that M/s Trinity Tradelink Ltd has provided long term capital gain to various clients and these clients were mostly from Delhi. 6. Taking a leaf out of the statement of Shri Vikrant Kayan, the Assessing Officer formed a belief that long term capital gain in the share of M/s Trinity Tradelink Ltd claimed by the assessee is bogus and fictitious. 7. After analysing the balance sheet of M/s Trinity Tradelink Ltd, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the long term capital gain claimed by the assessee is not bonafide and disallowed the same and added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. Further, the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 60,915/- being 5% of long term capital gai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng channels evidenced by supporting documentary evidences. Moreover, securities transactions tax has also been paid. 13. Merely on the strength of statement of third party i.e. Shri Vikrant Kayan cannot justify the impugned additions. Moreso, when specific request was made by the assessee for allowing cross examination was denied by the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority also did not consider it fit to allow cross-examination. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006 wherein it has been held as under: According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, 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 as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 2216 of 2000, orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
