https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205251 The court upheld the legality of reassessment despite the lack of cross-examination opportunities based on a third person's statement, as there was sufficient material supporting the additions. The denial of cross-examination and failure to provide a copy of the statement were deemed non-prejudicial due to the assessee's lack of cooperation. Additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected for lack of diligence and essentiality. The appeal challenging the impugned orders was dismissed, affirming the sufficiency of existing evidence and the assessee's responsibility to provide essential evidence for a fair decision. en-us Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Sep 2011 17:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205251 The court upheld the legality of reassessment despite the lack of cross-examination opportunities based on a third person's statement, as there was sufficient material supporting the additions. The denial of cross-examination and failure to provide a copy of the statement were deemed non-prejudicial due to the assessee's lack of cooperation. Additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected for lack of diligence and essentiality. The appeal challenging the impugned orders was dismissed, affirming the sufficiency of existing evidence and the assessee's responsibility to provide essential evidence for a fair decision. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205251