TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 120
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced as under:- "6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the addition which was made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee without giving his an opportunity to rebut the same in violation of the principle of natural justice." 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed his e-return of income on 29.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 23,54,870/- and the same was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act"). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny through CASS, accordingly notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 28.8.2015 was issued and served upon the assessee. the assessee is a contractor and run ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... proceedings....."; (ii) the inference drawn by the AO is only on the basis of material collected at the back of the appellant for which no opportunity to cross examine the same was provided to the assessee and therefore, the said action of the AO is in gross violation of principle of natural justice...." She stated that the issue in dispute is squarely by the decision of the ITAT, SMC, Delhi Bench wherein the Tribunal 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 has allowed the appeal of the assessee on similar facts and circumstances. Hence, requested to follow the aforesaid case and allow the appeal of the assessee. 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authori....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that when the appellant has failed to appear before AO for the personal deposition u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act and now the assessee is claiming opportunity of cross examination and wrongly upheld the AO's order, which is not proper. I further note that exactly on the similar facts and circumstances 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 wherein, the SMC Bench has considered the statement of Vikrant Kayan and has held that since the impugned addition was made on the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan without providing any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the same and Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same ground, which is in violati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to crossexamine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why ....