9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a delaying tactic by the assessee, and Ld. AO has culminated the assessment by making the addition u/s 69B. We have observed that during the assessment proceedings and thereafter before the appellate authority, the assessee was not allowed to substantiate its contentions by way of cross-examination of the parties who have given the statement against the assessee, though no such request was made before the Ld. AO but has raised specific ground before the Ld. CIT(A). The request to call and confront the prime witness Mr. Dile Suryavanshi was also not considered appropriate by the Ld. AO. Affidavits of such parties were assumed to be afterthought and self-serving documents without confronting the same with the concerned parties. Such proceedings wherein proper opportunity of being heard was not extended to the assessee to explain its case or to substantiate its contentions under the available remedies as per law are against the settled principle of law, in particular when the assessee is saddled with an addition on account of an unexplained investment u/s 69B. The issue in the present case regarding addition u/s 69B, wherein reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the assessee shou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not found any force in the submissions and conditions of the assessee, and thus the appeal filed before him has been dismissed. The extract of the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder for the sake of clarity: Decision The Power of attorney which had been filed before me includes the name of 8 persons and name of Ashish Purankar appears on 8th number. In the power of attorney the name of Shri Ajay Sindhwani does not appear. How the appellant had come to know that Ashish Purankar discussed the case on 01.03.2017 means that Shri Ashish Purankar the duly power of attorney holder had brief the assessee and brought Shri Ajay (Sindhwani as his counsel. Both of them have not negatived that Shri Ashish Purankar is not power of attorney holder. The statement of Smt. Chutki Bai dated 10.02.2016 has been recorded in presence of two witnesses Shri Chandra Kumar and Shri Vyas Narayan. The assessing officer has passed the order on 08.03.2016 whereas he had recorded statement of legal heir of Shri Nardha on 10.02.2016. The statement recorded by the AO was confronted by the AO to the assessee and it was incumbent upon the assessee to request the AO to call the witnesses for cross ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts narrated by the AO and submission made by the assessee and the AR through Dak, I do not find any force in the submission of the ARs. The finding given by the AO is hereby, confirmed because by incorporating the statement in the assessment order the AO had not hidden any fact of the case. Mere filing of appeal and filing affidavit which are self serving documents the learned AR could not bring any material which could have change the factual position of the case. The ground of appeal is dismissed and the additions made by the AO is confirmed because the AO is not an enemy of the assessee and nor he is a police officer. Had he had ill intention, he could have also not relied of the statement of another seller Shri Mukesh Tiwari who had also sold the land to the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us. 6. At the outset, Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee has submitted that according to ground no. 2 of the appeal, the assessee has assailed the issue that he was kept deprived off the proper opportunity by the Ld. CIT(A). This fact discernible from the order of Ld. CIT(A) wherein the assessee has reques ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, he vehemently supported and requested to sustain the same. 8. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material available on record. On going through the facts of the case, it is evident that the assessee was confronted by the AO with the statements of the third party, on which the assessee has rebutted that such statements are not factually correct and, therefore, the same cannot be used against the assessee, but Ld. AO has discarded such submissions of the assessee without providing the opportunity to cross-examine the third party in the absence of any prayer of the assessee. To substantiate his contention, the assessee has also submitted that Mr. Dile Suryavanshi, the prime witness, should be called to take his statement to establish the correctness of the fact than has been cropped up from the statements of Smt. Chutki Bai and Jaswant Kumar Sonant. However, the request of the assessee to cross-examination Mr. Dile Suryavanshi was also considered as unnecessary and a delaying tactic by the assessee, and Ld. AO has culminated the assessment by making the addition u/s 69B. On perusal of the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, we have observed tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
