TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1710
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o took into consideration the fact that the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey alone had formed the bedrock for the additions in taxable turnover. It further noted that the assessee from the very beginning disputed the statement of Ghanshyam and therefore the imperative necessity that the revisionist be granted an opportunity to cross examine. The issue itself arose out of the fact that the Department is stated to have obtained the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey in which he alleged that no transport of goods was effected to Daman at the behest of the assessee. Upon subsequently being confronted with the transport bill, he is purported to have stated that the said bill was generated only on the instructions of the assessee. On this material alon....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t that it was the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey alone on which rested the view adopted by the respondents that tax had been evaded and the theory of transportation of goods to Diu a falsity. Since the edifice for addition in turnover and imposition of tax rested on the statement of Ghanshyam Pandey, it was necessary for the respondents to grant an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine him. It is also not disputed that from the inception, the assessee had been demanding a right of opportunity to cross examine Ghanshyam Pandey. Regard must also be had to the fact that the assessment proceedings themselves related to the Assessment Year 199596. The fact that the business had closed down by the time the Assessing Authority proceeded to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that crossexamination 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 their exfactory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to crossexamine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. 7. 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 ....