TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (12) TMI 1265
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order within 15 days of last hearing of case. ii) That the said case in law and in the facts, on both, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting grounds of the appellant's appeal before him challenging on fact and law in rejecting the rectification application u/s. 154 by AO. iii) That the said case in law and in the facts, on both, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in rejecting grounds of the appellant's appeal before him and partly confirmed the addition made by AO and has disallowed an amount of Rs. 5,84,093/- (comprising gratuity Rs. 2,74,561/-), Rs. 2,93,264/- FBT and Rs. 16,268/- wealth tax) has already been disallowed by the assessee suo motto, while computing taxable income and the balance amount has not been claimed in the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idual, all of which were not traceable, neither the Individual could be traced nor the Companies were in existence at their registered offices). On the basis of various Documents seized, Statements recorded, Enquiries conducted, Information gathered and consideration of the Submissions of the Assessee Company, it was concluded by the Assessing Officer that the Share Capital (Rs. 79,50,000/-) @ Rs. 100/- per Share and Share Premium (Rs.3,97,50,500/-) @ Rs. 500/- per Share was claimed, were from bogus and non- existing Companies and bogus receipts has also been claimed from the Individual and that the Assessee Company had taken the shelter of these Persons for its unaccounted money. For the instant year, addition of Rs. 1,56,00,000/- (Rs. 26,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te. He further submitted that the action of the lower authorities in not providing the opportunity of cross examination of the socalled entry providers is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT 127 DTR 0241. He also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Best Infrastructure (India) (P) Ltd. (2017) 84 taxmann.com 287 (Delhi). Hence, he requested to follow the same and the appeal of the assessee may be allowed. 4. Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the authorities below and also relied upon the case on the merits of the case i.e. addition made u/s. 68 of the Act. 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the 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 bro....