TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 1165
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. against the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, for the Assessment Year 2010-11 had been accepted. 2. The respondent-company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of ACSR Conductors (Aluminium conductor steel reinforce), DPC Wire Strips (double paper covered wire), steels wire ropes, PVC cables and besides trading of M.S. Pipes, aluminium wire and allied products. The assessment had been framed u/s 143(3) on 12.06.2012 and the trading results were accepted by the department during complete scrutiny. However, certain other additions were made by the AO and later on the assessee approached CIT(A) who had provided part relief of Rs. 3.50 lakhs out of the total additions. Neither the d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3. Jatinder Kumar Shree Nath Ispat Udhyog, Gobindgar 2.06 Cr 4. Shree Radhey Steel & Alloys 0.99 Cr TOTAL 4.26 Cr 5. The respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the additions on account of bogus purchases and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the respondent-assessee filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind and merely relied upon the information received from the Investigating Wing and the statement of Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja. The said information was required to be corroborated and verified by the Assessing Officer. Admittedly, the Assessing Officer had completed the regular assessment under scrutiny on 18.06.2012 after....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of statement given by Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja on 07.01.2015 before the investigating wing. The said statement was received by the assessee on 08.12.2017 and the Assessing Officer was requested to permit the assessee to cross-examine Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja. However, Madan Lal Pahuja did not turn up for examination and cross-examination during the reassessment proceedings. In this backdrop, the statement recorded by the investigating wing could not form basis of investigation. It was the duty of the revenue to produce the witness namely Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja as the revenue was relying upon his statement. iv. Once the Assessing Officer of Sh. Madan Lal Pahuja had accepted the sales made to the assessee in the assessment order dated 20.12.2017 p....