TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1223
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with facts and circumstances of ITA No. 4992/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) - Shobhit Gupta vs. ACIT, CC-20, New Delhi and the result thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal of Smt. Rachna Gupta vs. ACIT, CC-20, New Delhi - ITA No. 4993/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15). 2. Brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed its e-return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 30.07.2004 declaring a taxable income of Rs. 29,40,730/-. The case of the assessee was picked up for limited scrutiny under CASS and accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "Act") was issued on 28.8.2015. Detailed questionnaire alognwith notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act were issued on 14.6.2016 and 4.11.2016. In response thereto, the AR of the assessee attended the proceedings from time to time and filed necessary details / information/documents, etc. as required. During the year under consideration, assessee derives income chargeable to tax under the head income from salary, income from house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. During the course of scrutiny proceedings in assessee's case for the ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing the income at Rs. 35,50,730/- u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.12.2016. Against the above addition, assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 15.05.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved with the impugned order dated 15.5.2018, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) mechanically addressed the concern of the assessee that Ld. AO had passed the assessment order in violation of principles of natural justice and relied upon the material collected at the back of the assessee without offering an opportunity to cross examine. He draw my attention towards page no. 50 vide para no. 21 & 21.3 of the assessment order wherein in the last three lines, the AO has observed "........In order to sustain a complaint of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross examination, it has to be established that prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed....". ..."there has been in the facts and circumstances of the case, no infraction of any principle of natural justice by the abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dent corroboration from any incriminating material." 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the assessment order as well as impugned order and forming a negative inference solely on the basis of extracts of statement which was not confronted to the assessee much less offered for cross examination. During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that Ld. CIT(A) mechanically addressed the concern of the assessee that Ld. AO had passed the assessment order in violation of principles of natural justice and relied upon the material collected at the back of the assessee without offering an opportunity to cross examine. I find that at page no. 50 vide para no. 21 & 21.3 of the assessment order the AO has observed that "........In order to sustain a complaint of violation of principles of natural justice on the ground of absence of opportunity of cross examination, it has to be established that prejudice has been caused to the appellant by the procedure followed...." . ..."there has been in the facts and circumstances of the case, no infraction of any principle of natural justice by the absence of a formal opportunity of oral cross examination....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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, 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 justify the impugned additions. Moreso, when specific request was made by the assessee for al lowing cross examination was denied by the Assessing Of ficer. The first appel late authority also did not consider it fit to allow cross-examination. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006 wherein it has been held as under: "According to us, not allowing the a....