TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (2) TMI 408
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent and order dated 20.8.2015 passed in I.T.A. No. 54/LKW/2012 (Assessment Year 2005-06) passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench "B", Lucknow Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgement dated 20.8.2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Lucknow Bench "B", Lucknow. The common facts of these two appeals are that Rs. 36 lacs were added in the assessment year 2005-06 while Rs. 55,83,300/- were added in the assessment year 2006-07 on the basis of the statement of Prakash Chandra Bhutoria and computer printouts (three in number) found during the course of search and seizure operation taken place on 6.5.2005 at Kolkata on Bhutoria Group premises. On 6.12.2005, search and seizure action un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 39,62,285/- for Assessment Year 2006-07. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) on 31.12.2007, assessing the total income at Rs. 2,58,03,100/-. While passing the assessment order assessing officer made the following additions:- 1 Addition on protective basis on account of income earned by the assessee from coal business carried out through Syndicate. Rs. 55,83,300/- 2 Addition on account of investment in the coal business. Rs. 1,17,93,900/- 3 Addition on account of profit on premium of purchase & sale of coal. Rs. 12,82,850/- 4 Addition on account of payments to the subagents for deposit with NCCF, Bhubbneshwar. Rs. 18,17,200/- 5 Addition on account of unexplained credit balance as on 31.3.2006 with NCCF, Ko....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal has returned the finding that the additions earlier made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of material seized during the course of search and seizure from Sri Prakash Bhutoria and on the basis of his statement, Sri Bhutoria was not allowed to be cross examined by the assessee, so learned Tribunal did not rely on his statement as the statement was not tested on cross examination. Furthermore, learned Tribunal did not deem it proper to rely on the statement of Sri Bhutani because the assessee was not allowed to cross examine him. The view of the Tribunal is supported by the following case laws:- 1. CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla and others, AIR (1998)(SC) 1406. 2. Malwa Vanaspatii and Chemicals Co. Ltd. Vs. CST (1995) UPTC 987. 3. Stat....