TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (5) TMI 1909
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave been raised in all the appeals, hence, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with ITA No.624/SRT/2018 in the case of M/s.Gopinath Gems and the result thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other 06 appeals. ITA No.624/SRT/2018 for A.Y. 2009-10 grounds reproduced as under : "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned assessing officer has erred in reopening assessment u/s.147 of the Act. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in partly confirming the addition of Rs. 17,22,268/- out of Rs. 38,23,00....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries [281 CTR 241] as well as the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of legal representative of late Laxmanbhai S Patel [327 ITR 290]. He further stated that furnishing of copies of material collected by Assessing Officer to the assessee is a statutory requirement as provided in section 142(3) which has not been done by the Revenue Authority. Therefore, he requested that assessment in dispute may be quashed by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra). In support of his contention he has also filed a paper book containing page 1 to 169 in which has attached various case laws. He has also filed a second paper book containing page 1 to 91 in which he ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion and facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the issue in dispute has already been adjudicated and decided in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC). The relevant portion from para 6 to 8 is reproduced as under:- "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions. 8. In view the above, we are of the opinion that if the testimony of thes....