9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1403X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2016 for assessment year 2010-11. Since, the issue raised in both the appeals are identical and are arising from same set of facts, these appeals are taken up together for adjudication and are disposed of vide this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the records are : A search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") was carried out on Gita Group of concerns from Karnataka and Tapadia Family group concerns at Pune on 06-06-2012. During the course of search at the premises of aforesaid parties certain incriminating documents were found and seized. The seized documents inter alia indicated that Tapadia family had sold land at Baner to the assessee and had recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions of assessee dismissed both the appeals vide separate impugned orders. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The assessee has assailed the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds in ITA No. 2280/PUN/2016 for assessment year 2006-07 : "1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming that proper opportunity of hearing was provided to the assessee by the Assessing Officer and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 97,74,069/- u/s. 69B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t for making the addition in the hands of assessee. The statements recorded at the back of assessee cannot be used to make additions in the hands of assessee. The authorities below should have afforded opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. In support of his contention the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions : i. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda in Income Tax Appeal No. 197/2012 decided by the Hon‟ble Rajasthan High Court on 31-07-2017; ii. Sri G. Mahesh Babu Vs. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax in SLP No. 39980 of 2017 decided on 23-02-2018 by Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India; iii. Jaydeep M. Kher Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No. 973/PN/2013 for assessment year 2003-04 de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nent of consideration received from assessee on sale of plot to tax. The receipt of cash admitted by Tapadia family was offered to tax as under : A.Y. Name of assessee Amount 2006-07 Deepa B Tapadiya Rs. 61,98,429/- 2006-07 Yash B Tapadiya Rs. 35,75,640/- 2010-11 Ajay B Tapadiya Rs. 1,42,65,106/- Total Rs. 2,40,39,175/- 5.1 As regards the opportunity of cross-examination, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer had issued summons to Ajay Tapadia twice. On both the occasions, Ajay B. Tapadia remained absent for cross-examination. Hence, it is not a case where the opportunity of crossexamination was not afforded to the assessee. The assessee had entered into an agreement for purchase of land with Tapad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... way of cheque and cash on sale of land, purchased by the assessee. In so far as the plea of assessee that opportunity to cross examination Ajay B Tapadiya on whose statement addition is made in the hands of the assessee is concerned, we find that the Assessing Officer had summoned Ajay B Tapadiya for cross-examination on two occasions. However, on both the occasions Ajay B Tapadiya did not turn up for cross-examination. Thus, it is not a case where the opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the assessee. The assessee had entered into transaction for purchase of land with Tapadias. The assessee made no effort either to obtain clarification from Ajay B Tapadiya regarding onmoney payments nor the assessee could ensure presenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
