https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181153 Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the reassessment where the Department had tried to secure the principal witness, the assessee declined to cross-examine the other witness, and the adverse statement remained uncontroverted. On those facts, the Court held that no breach of natural justice was shown and the reassessment could stand. In penalty proceedings, the Court held that concealment penalty could be sustained where the commission claim was concurrently found bogus and the assessee failed to prove genuineness or actual services. The quantum findings were treated as relevant in the penalty stage, and no fresh cross-examination right was required there. The penalty deletion was set aside and the Assessing Officer's penalty restored. en-us Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 May 2016 15:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181153 Denial of cross-examination did not vitiate the reassessment where the Department had tried to secure the principal witness, the assessee declined to cross-examine the other witness, and the adverse statement remained uncontroverted. On those facts, the Court held that no breach of natural justice was shown and the reassessment could stand. In penalty proceedings, the Court held that concealment penalty could be sustained where the commission claim was concurrently found bogus and the assessee failed to prove genuineness or actual services. The quantum findings were treated as relevant in the penalty stage, and no fresh cross-examination right was required there. The penalty deletion was set aside and the Assessing Officer's penalty restored. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 04 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181153