TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (11) TMI 1487
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of convenience, by dealing with ITA No. 4565/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) - Anubhav Jain vs. ITO. In both the appeals the assessee has raised as many 05 grounds of appeal. But at the time of hearing, Ld. A.R. for the assessee has only argued the ground no. 3.2 which is reproduced as under:- "3.2 That the order passed by the Hon'ble CIT(A) upholding the order of the Ld. AO is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the Hon'ble CIT(A) and the Ld. AO placed reliance on statement of some person(s) without providing any opportunity to the appellant to cross-examine the same." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his e-return of income on 30.6.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 6,24,370/- after claiming deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ore the AO, as aforesaid, which was also not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). He further draw my attention towards page no. 24 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order wherein it was specifically mentioned that the assessee is specifically asked for copies of the statements of Sh. Vikram Kayan and also seeks cross examination of Sh. Vikram Kayan, but not considered the said request of the assessee. Further, it was submitted that vide ground no. 5 raised before the Ld. CIT(A) assessee has challenged the order of the AO by stating that the addition made by the AO is untenable in the eyes of law having been made without providing opportunity to cross examine the persons on the basis of whose statements the allegations have been made against the assessee and wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee before the AO in response to the show cause notice. I find from the Assessment Order page no. 6 para 13 in which the AO has himself reproduced the submission of the assessee submitted vide assessee's reply dated 7.12.2016 requesting therein to allow the assessee to cross examine the source on the basis of which such an opinion has been formed which was not considered by the AO while passing the assessment order. I further note from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)'s in para no. 13 wherein the assessee's reply dated 7.12.2016 as made before the AO, as aforesaid was reproduced and also not considered by the Ld. CIT(A). I further find that at page no. 24 of the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, it was mentioned that the assessee was specifically a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has not considered the same ground, which is in violation of principle of natural justice and against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber vs. CIT decided in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. For the sake of convenience, I am reproducing the relevant portion of the ITAT, SMC, Delhi Bench vide its order dated 06.11.2018 passed in ITA No. 3510/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) in the case of Smt. Jyoti Gupta vs. ITO as under:- "13. Merely on the strength of statement of third party i.e. Shri Vikrant Kayan cannot justi fy the impugned additions. Moreso, when specific request was made by the assessee for allowing cross examination was denied by the Assessing Officer. The first appellate authority also did n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of crossexamination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself....