TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1465
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, intentional delay technique in revising the grounds of appeal. She drew my attention towards page no. 02 of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein, vide ground no. 3 (wrongly mentioned as '5') the assessee has raised the ground that "The AO erred in fact and law as well by not providing reasonably opportunity of being heard". She further drew my attention towards Page no. 32 of Ld. CIT(A)'s order wherein the Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the plea of the Assessee that while making the addition of Rs. 11,78,216/- the AO has relied on statements of Sh. Vikrant Kayan without providing opportunity to the assessee for cross examination of such person. Hence, in the interest of natural justice, she requested to admit the following additional/revised ground of appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... investigated and goes to the root of the matter. In the interest of justice, I admit the aforesaid additional ground raised by the assessee, in view of the case law of NTPC Limited (Supra) and proceed to decide the additional ground first raised by the Assessee during the hearing. 5. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has only argued the revised/additional ground and stated that the addition in dispute has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act on the basis of the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan, on whose statement the AO has treated the exempt Long Term Capital Gain claimed u/s. 10(38) of the Act of Rs. 11,78,216/- as undisclosed income of the assessee, but both the revenue authoritie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Ld. CIT(A) in his impugned order at page no. 32 has reproduced the plea of the Assessee that while making the addition of Rs. 11,78,216/- the AO has relied on statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan without providing opportunity to the assessee for cross examination of such person. In view of above, there is no doubt that assessee has raised the ground of providing opportunity of cross examination of Sh. Vikrant Kayan before the Ld. CIT(A) and also by way of revised/additional ground before the Tribunal. 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 consid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that 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 cross-examine, 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....