TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (4) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Rs. 15,06,500/-, in proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act". 2. The assessee raises following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: "(1) The learned CIT (Appeals), Valsad has erred in law as well as on facts while confirming the order of the ITO, Ward 2, Navsari making addition of Rs. 15,06,500/- on account of alleged unexplained investment. (2) The learned CIT (Appeals), Valsad failed to observe that the AO has acted in gross violation of the principles of natural justice by not allowing the appellant opportunity of being heard and to cross examine the third party whose statement recorded at the back of the appellant and relied upon by him and hence, the action of the AO....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the abovestated amount of Rs. 15,06,500/- as unexplained investment. The assessment order in question dated 31.12.2008 reveals that the Assessing Officer took note of the above criminal case, statement of complainant therein as well as latter inquiry proceedings to reject assessee's explanation of not owning the money above said. 4. The assessee preferred appeal. Ld. CIT(A) declines the same in the order under challenge with the following findings: "4.2 DECISION : I have carefully gone through the assessment order and the submissions made by the Id. AR. The fact of the case is that the appellant allegedly sent money to Shri. Riyazkamal Lokhandwala of M/s. Z. V. Steel, Mumbai through Angadia Company named M/s. Rameshkumar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Shri. Riyazkamal Lokhandwala of Mumbai. One of the receipts issued by the Angadia for amount Rs. 8.06,500/- was placed on record as evidence of receiving money from the appellant. ii. In reply to the letter dated. 21.04.2006 from the P.S., the appellant had confirmed the facts stated by Shri. Rameshkumar K. Patel one of the partners of M/s. Rameshkumar Ambalal & Co. vide the appellant's statement recorded on 24.05.2006. iii. The AO confronted all the materials collected from the Police Authority vide SCN dated. 26.12.2008. iv. The AO has established that the appellant has been in the know of the matter since 2005-06. 4.4 On careful consideration to the facts and circumstances, the core issue to be decided is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....el, Mumbai. In this circumstances, I am constrained to agree with the findings of the AO and the contention raised by the Id. AR is rejected. Thus this ground of appeal is dismissed." 5. We have heard both parties. Case file perused. Learned counsel raises two contentions in the course of hearing. First one is that the lower authorities have violated principles of natural justice in not affording opportunity of cross examination of the above complainant before making the impugned addition in his hands. He quotes hon'ble apex court's decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) in seeking to annul the entire assessment. We however notice that page 9 of the paper book contains assessee's statement ....