2018 (5) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct'). 2. Broadly stated, the assessee/appellant has raised two grounds of appeal. The 1st one is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming the reopening made by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s 147 of the Act. The 2nd ground is against the order of the CIT(A) estimating profit @ 25% out of alleged hawala purchases of Rs. 25,74,568/- which comes to Rs. 6,43,642/-. 3. We begin with the 1st ground of appeal. The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the AY 2011-12 on 29.09.2011 disclosing a total income of Rs. 69,49,784/-. The same was processed by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (AO) received information from the Sales Tax Department, Government of Maharashtra that ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....terial was there before the AO warranting re-opening, is not relevant. In view of the above position of law, we uphold the re-opening made by the AO by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act. 4. Now we turn to the 2nd ground of appeal. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to file details in respect of purchases made from the abovementioned parties. The AO, having gone through the details filed by the assessee noticed that the said transactions were not properly supported by relevant documents such as transportation bills, delivery challans, goods receiving note, octroi receipt etc. Subsequently, the AO issued notice u/s 133(6) to the abovementioned parties asking them to produce the details of transacti....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... counsel files a Paper Book containing the decision in M/s Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II (SC) (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006); H.R. Mehta v. The ACIT, Mumbai (Bom.) (ITA No. 58 of 2001); CIT-13 v. Ashish International (Bom.) (ITA No. 4299 of 2009); Income Tax Officer 25(3)(2), Mumbai v. Deepak Poptalal Gala (ITA Bench - D, Mumbai) ITA No. 592/Mum/2013 dated 27.03.2015; Hiralal Chunnilal Jain v. Income Tax Officer (ITAT Mumbai 'H' Bench) ITA No. 457/Mum/2014, ITA No. 2545/Mum/2014 and ITA No. 1275/Mum/2014. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. DR submits that the notices issued by the AO u/s 133(6) were returned back as unserved by the postal authorities. These notices carried the address provided by the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ler AIR 1977 SC 1627, recognised the importance of oral evidence by holding that the opportunity to prove the correctness or completeness of the return necessarily carry with it the right to examine witnesses and that includes equally the right to cross-examine witnesses. In ITO vs. M. PiraiChoodi (2012) 20 taxmann.com 733 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "Order of assessment passed without granting an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine, should not have been set aside by High Court; at most, High Court should have directed Assessing Officer to grant an opportunity to assessee to cross-examine concerned witness." In a similar case of a beneficiary of accommodation entries, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Bombay Hi....