Cross-examination denial alone cannot quash an assessment when the statutory appellate remedy was available and not used.

Denial of cross-examination did not justify quashing the assessment order in its entirety where the assessee had an available statutory appellate remedy before the CIT(A) but did not pursue it. The proper course, if cross-examination was needed, was to direct the Assessing Officer to afford that opportunity rather than invalidate the assessment proceedings wholesale. On that basis, the High Court's order setting aside the assessment was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the assessment order on the ground that the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the concerned witness, despite the availability of a statutory appellate remedy.

Analysis: The assessment order ought not to have been set aside in its entirety merely for denial of cross-examination. At the highest, the appropriate course was to direct the Assessing Officer to grant such opportunity. The assessee had an alternative statutory remedy before the CIT (Appeals) and had failed to avail it. In these circumstances, the High Court ought not to have quashed the assessment proceedings.

Conclusion: The order of the High Court was unsustainable and was set aside.

---