9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 515X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous and subsequent Assessment Years. AO did not record a specific note of his satisfaction / dissatisfaction with regard to those three persons. Assessee is non-suited solely on the ground that Mr.Naninar Mohammed did not appear and other two persons did not respond. The fact remains that the notice sent by the AO to Mr.Naninar Mohammed returned with a postal endorsement 'left' and there appears to have been no attempt made to summon the said person by following other modes of substituted service - Appropriate view that should have been taken is to take note of the genuinity of the assessee and the decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessee's own case for the earlier and subsequent assessment years. - Decided ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... half decades especially when the assessing officer himself has deleted the addition related to Nainar Mohammed in the subsequent assessment year and failed to issue summons and allow cross examination of the other two persons. 3.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in upholding the addition when the assessing authority's order dated 28.03.1996 got upset by the Tribunal order dated 25.01.2005 in entirety relating to the additions concerned with 6 persons, without granting an opportunity to the appellant as ordered by the Tribunal itself on 25.11.2005. 2. We have elaborately heard Ms.Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for the appellant / assessee and Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant is that in respect of two persons, the Assessing Officer did not give any specific dates to enable the assessee to produce those two persons before the Assessing Officer for recording statement. It was further argued that in respect of the very same persons, for the earlier assessment year namely, 1992-1993 and for the subsequent assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer accepted those entries in the assessee's account in the name of the same sundry creditors, as genuine. Therefore, there was no reason as to why for the assessment year under consideration, AY 1993- 1994, the same should not be accepted. It is the further argument that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded, for the earlier assessment year, the addition in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s non-suited solely on the ground that Mr.Naninar Mohammed did not appear and other two persons did not respond. The fact remains that the notice sent by the Assessing Officer to Mr.Naninar Mohammed returned with a postal endorsement 'left' and there appears to have been no attempt made to summon the said person by following other modes of substituted service. However the appropriate view that should have been taken is to take note of the genuinity of the assessee and the decision of the Assessing Officer in the assessee's own case for the earlier and subsequent assessment years. We say so because this will prove the genuineness of the transaction as the Assessing Officer accepted those sums found credited in the books of accoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
