Cross-examination lapse affects only estimated addition, not conceded turnover; entire assessment cannot be annulled in toto.

A procedural lapse in denying cross-examination of a witness referred to in the remand order affected only the estimated addition made after rejection of the books; it did not justify annulment of the entire assessment. The conceded turnover stood independently admitted by the assessee and could not be displaced by that defect. The tribunal erred in treating the non-compliance as vitiating the full assessment, and the matter was confined to fresh consideration of the estimated component in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on failure to provide cross-examination of a witness referred to in the remand order, the entire assessment including the conceded turnover could be set aside in toto.

Analysis: The assessment was based partly on an estimated addition made after rejection of the books and partly on the turnover conceded by the assessee. The requirement to permit cross-examination of the witness was relevant only to the estimated addition and to the support for the rejected books. Non-compliance with that direction could not, by itself, dislodge the conceded turnover, which stood independently admitted by the assessee. The appellate tribunal erred in treating the defect as vitiating the entire assessment.

Conclusion: The entire assessment could not be annulled in toto on that ground; at most, the estimated addition was open to reconsideration. The tribunal's order was therefore set aside and the matter was directed to be decided afresh in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded, and the assessment for the relevant year was restored for fresh consideration by the tribunal to the extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural lapse affecting only an estimated component of assessment does not justify setting aside the entire assessment where the conceded turnover is independently sustainable.

---