TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (5) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....credits of Rs. 913000 despite of number of reasonable opportunities provided. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 913000 made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources even though the assessee had failed to establish the identity of the creditors, the capacity of the creditors and genuineness of the amounts deposited in bank of Rs. 913000." 2. A tax evasion petition against the assessee was received by the AO from the DDIT(Inv.), Faridabad. As per the details of the information contained herein, certain deposits were found to have been made, amounting to Rs. 913000, in the assessee bank account. The AO formed a belief that these deposits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cation which has been rejected. The Ld.DR, challenging the impugned order, has contended that the CIT(A) has erred in quashing the assessment on the ground of principles of natural justice, even though the assessee had failed to furnish any evidence in respect of unexplained cash credit of Rs. 913000, despite the fact that a number of opportunities had been granted by the AO to the assessee; and that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 913000 made by the AO on account of income from undisclosed sources, even though the assessee had failed to establish the identity and the capacity of the creditors, as well as the genuineness of the deposits. 5. On behalf of the assessee, written submissions have been filed. 6. We have hard th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....his letter received and acknowledged in the AO's office on 05.12.2007. In view of the ratio of judgment in the case of CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. (2007) 288 I.T.R. 345)Delhi High Court), where it has been held that the AO functioning as a quasi judicial authority was under an obligation to adhere to the principles of natural justice, therefore, in the present case, in the absence of cross examination of the witness, the evidence collected at the back of the assessee cannot be relied upon by the department and hence the proceedings u/s 148 stand vitiated . Thus, the ground No.3 is allowed." 8. From the above, it is seen that undeniably, the witness, i.e., Shri Ashok Lakhanpal, the complainant, was not allowed to be crossexamined by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ddition is tenable. 10. Further, it has been found as a fact that in the enquiries before the DDIT(Inv.) Fbd. and before the AO, the assessee had produced all the particulars of the deposits, supported by relevant documents. The details in this regard, as given by the assessee before the authorities below, are as follows: 1. Deposit of Rs. 3 lacs though DD on 16.08.99 This DD was given by Tsering Wangdus R/On the other hand, Ld.AR for the assessee strongly supported the order under appeal. Sahoo leh-Ladakh(J&K) as advance for project of Floricultue. Copy or receipt is enclosed. It is self explanatory evidence. So the creditors identity is cleared. 2. Rs. 100000 cash deposited on 25/09/09. It was received from Surinder Kr. Sachdev. ....