TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 820
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Sri.Mritunjaya Sharma, Senior Departmental Representative appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Sri.M.V.Venugopal, Chartered Accountant appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. It was submitted by the learned Departmental Representative that the assessee is a non-resident doing business in Saudi Arabia and also receiving rental income, interest income and agricultural income. It was the submission that the original return of income filed by the assessee had been proposed u/s 143(1) of the I.T.Act. Subsequently it came to the attention of the A.O. that the assessee had purchased 28.73 cents of land from one Sri.P.Moideen Koya. The land was situated at Mavoor Road, Kozhikode. It further came to the attention that on-money transaction had tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 2,23,23,046 and made an addition thereof as unexplained income of the assessee invested in the purchase of property. It was the submission by the learned DR that on appeal the learned CIT(A) had deleted the addition without considering the various evidences produced by the A.O., but by simply observing as follows:- "14. It is observed from the above discussions that the entire addition was made based on the statements recorded from the seller Sri.Moideen Koya and his brother Sri. Moosa. However, Sri.Moideen Koya himself has not filed any return of income for the income admitted in his sworn statement. Moreover Moideen Koya himself has stated that he did not have any direct transaction with the appellant and the payments were received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eir agents against the assessee has been provided. It was the submission that no further evidences, if any, has been granted to the assessee. It was the submission that the order of the learned CIT(A) is liable to the sustained on merits. It was the submission that reopening of the assessment on the basis of mere statements was bad in law. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. On going through the facts in the present case and at the time of hearing, the learned DR was specifically asked as to whether the assessee has been granted the opportunity to cross examine Sri.Moideen Koya and his brother Sri.Valiyil Moosa and such persons whose statements have been used to draw adverse inference against the assessee. To this, it was submitte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of his ill-health. In para 11 of the statement of facts, it is mentioned that in the written objections dated 18.12.2010 filed by the assessee in para 6, attention of the A.O. was drawn to the fact that the assessee's Authorized Representative had requested permission to cross-examine the witnesses, but this was declined by the A.O. insisting that the appellant should be personally present and it was for that reason that the opportunity to cross-examine could not be availed. In the statement of facts in para 17, the assessee has submitted that he had made several requests in the course of assessment and after receipt of the assessment order to furnish copies of statements recorded from Sri.Moideen Koya on 17.01.2008 by the ADIT, Income-tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t it is a rule of essential justice. Violation of the principles of natural justice can result in total nullity of the entire addition. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. We are also live to the fact that the said decision relates to a Central Excise matter. 11. A perusal of the statement recorded from Sri.Valiyil Moosa, which has also been extracted by the A.O. in his assessment order in para 11 clearly records the facts that the transactions were not done directly by Sri.C.Abdul Maharoof, the assessee, but were done by his nephews Sri.Anwar and Sri.Bappooty. There is no direct dealings between the purchaser and the seller.....