2015 (12) TMI 1366

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s contention is that the disallowance had to be confirmed in toto, whereas according to the assessee, the disallowance requires to be deleted in full. 2. As per the Registry, there is a delay of 10 days in the filing of the assessee's appeal. As per the affidavit filed by the Director of the Company, he was travelling from 11-11-2011 to 7-12-2011 and was not available in India for filing the appeal and it was, therefore, that the appeal, which ought to have been filed on 27-11-2011, got to be filed on 8-12-2011, incurring a delay of 10 days. In view of the contents of the affidavit, finding it to be a case of sufficient cause preventing the filing of the appeal in time, the delay is condoned. 3. ITA No. 6435/Mum/2013, for A.Y. 2006-07 is ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he parties, like the assessee, alleged to have made bogus purchases from M/s Zalak Impex. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has contended that, in the present case, like in the case of M/s "Say India Jewellers Pvt. Ltd.", the A.O. did not draw any adverse inference so far as regards the export of diamonds by the assessee and that the addition made was only on assumptions and presumptions. It has been submitted that the statement of Shri Hiten L. Rawal, proprietor of Zalac Impex was never provided to the assessee and no opportunity of cross examination of Shri Rawal was afforded to the assessee, thereby leading to the illegal addition, which was wrongly sustained in part by the ld. CIT(A), though it ought to have been deleted in full. 7. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion of the natural principle of audi alteram partem. A statement recorded at the back of a party cannot be used against such party without confronting such statement to the party. Hence, on this score alone, the reassessment order is unsustainable in the eye of law and we hereby cancel the same. As a consequence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is also cancelled in toto. 10. Further, even otherwise, before the A.O., the assessee had contended, by written submissions filed on 25-11-2010, inter alia, that during the year, they had purchased diamonds worth Rs. 4,09,12,718/- from M/s Zalak Impex; that the assessee being in an export promotion zone, the movement of its goods is controlled and customs approved; that the purchases being approved pur....