TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....)' for short) dated 14.09.2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2007-2008. 2. Since, the identical facts and issues are involved in these appeals, we proceed to dispose the same vide this common order. 3. For the sake of convenience and clarity the facts relevant to the appeal in ITA No.3154/Chny/2018 for assessment year 2007-08 are stated herein. 4. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: ''1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and in the circumstances of the case. 2. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order of Assessing Officer in bringing to tax a sum of Rs. 617463/- under section 68 of the Act. 3. The Appellant submits ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....les of natural justice by not affording any opportunity to the Appellant to cross- examine Shri Goutham Jam 4.3 The Appellant relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 wherein it has held that not allowing Assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which made impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. 4.4. The Appellant relies on the decision of the Mumbai Tribunal in M/s.Rushabh Enterprises Vs. Asst. CIT ITA No.1580/Mum/2017 wherein the Tribunal held "Applying the proposition of law laid down ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee and interest had been paid to the lenders on the loan. 5.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have found that the Assessing Officer had totally ignored the relevant details, documents/confirmations, and necessary explanations given, in making the addition under section 68 though he had noted that the loan had been repaid by way of transfer of the shares 5.5 The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) ought to have found that the purchase of shares of M/s Hiran Orgo Chem Ltd was reflected in the demat account of the assessee and the shares were not penny stock 5.6 The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) ought to have found that the assessee had repaid the loans by way of transfer of shares to Shr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee that it is genuine transaction. 6. Being aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Even though, the assessee did not enter appearance before ld. CIT(A), the ld. CIT(A) adjudicated the issue raised by the assessee and dismissed the appeal on merits. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. Even before us, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice. 8. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative placed reliance on the orders of the lower authorities. 9. We heard the ld. Sr. Departmental Representative and perused the material on record. The findings of the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- ....