TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (6) TMI 284
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... facts of the case and law applicable to it. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 11,00,000/- under the provisions of section 68 of the act, ignoring the fact that, the amount represents trade advances received from Sri. R. P. Prashanth and Sources are explained. 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) aeered in confirming addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- underthe provisions of section 68 of the Act, ignoring the fact that, the amount represents trade advances received from Sri. K. B. Ramakrishna and sources are explained. 4. The learned commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the provisions of section 68 of the Act, ignoring ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity between returned income and assessed income is on account of disallowance of a sum of Rs. 19 lakhs falling under the head 'timber advance' received, in the balance sheet of the assessee as on 31/3/2010. The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that advance of Rs. 11 lakhs received from one Shri R.P.Prashanth, Rs. 3 lakhs from Shri K.B. Ramakrishna and Rs. 5 lakhs from Shri B.Krishnappa was received by way of cash as advance for purchase of timber from the appellant is not genuine. The AO caused inquiry from the respective parties. In the case of Shri R.P.Prashanth it was shown that the appellant received cash on the following dates: Date Mode Amount Rs. 18/05/2009 Cash 3,00,000 24/07/2009 Cash 3,00,000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ved, the assessee is before us in the present appeal. 5.1 The learned AR of the assessee vehemently contended that amounts were received from the respective parties as trade advance. Therefore, no addition can be made u/s 68. He further contended that mere fact that parties who advanced money towards supply of timber in future not responded to summons issued by the AO, cannot alone make purchase unbelievable. He further submitted that the AO has made additions without confronting the assessee material gathered by him. Thus, he submitted that the assessment order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 5.2 On the other hand, learned DR placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 5.3 We heard rival submissions and perused....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006 held that not granting of opportunity to cross examine witness whose statement were relied upon in making assessment is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounts violation of principles of natural justice. Because of which assessee was adversely affected. The relevant para of the judgment is extracted below: "...According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of creditors is enforced. In identical facts, in the case of CIT vs. Chandela Trading Co. P. Ltd. the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that: "3. From the judgment in Daulat Ram Rawatmull (supra) we find the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that a person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct and from the simple fact that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by him, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be false, it would be a remote and far-fetched conclusion to hold that the money belongs to some other person. In the context of the present case, if no further explanation co....