2019 (9) TMI 156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and Mukesh Kumar, are perverse?" 2. We have heard learned counsels and proceed to dispose of the appeal on the aforesaid two questions. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had raised cross-objections to the re-opening of the assessment. Those objections were rejected by the learned Assessing Officer as well as by the CIT (Appeals). However, the appeal of the appellant was allowed on merits. Those objections were raised before the ITAT as well in the appeal preferred by the Revenue. The learned ITAT decided the appeal against the Revenue in ITA 1376/2007 vide order dated 12.01.2009. The said decision was rendered by the learned ITAT on merits, and the cross-objections of the appellant had not been c....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s the appellant's cross-objections are concerned, as follows: "4.6. C.O. 187/Del/07:- From the order of the High Court it is observed that assessee had neither preferred any appeal to Hon'ble High Court challenging the validity of reopening, nor has Hon'ble High Court directed this Tribunal to decide the legal issue that was taken by assessee before this Tribunal. Accordingly in our considered opinion the Cross Objection raised by assessee at this juncture as on today does not arise out of the *directions passed by Hon'ble High Court vide order* dated 14/03/2012 in a group of cases wherein assessee has been one of the respondent in ITA No. 764/2010. Accordingly we dismiss the Cross Objection raised by assessee. It is not open to challe....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at the Tribunal has recorded findings with regard to the evidence led before the Assessing Officer. He submits that the said findings are perverse inasmuch, as, they are contrary to the record. He has sought to place reliance on the statement dated 17.10.2005 of Bishan Chand, partner of Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar. He submits that the Tribunal records in the impugned order that the Jeweller Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar had admitted that no jewellery was purchased from the appellant, and cheques were issued on commission. He submits that no such admission was made by Bishan Chand. He has also sought to place reliance on the finding returned by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) that the description of the items of jewellery disclosed in the VDIS is same as th....