2016 (2) TMI 408

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ncome Tax Act, 1961 against the judgement 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. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion 142 (1). In compliance of the notice, assessee filed return on 11.10.2007 declaring total income as Rs. 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 dep....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ITAT has erred in law and on facts in deleting the additions made by the Assessment Officers as mentioned earlier in the chart. We found that the Tribunal 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....