TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 1470
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....addition of Rs. 5,83,320/- made by the A.O. on account of on money payment for purchase of plot. 3. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee placed on record various decisions of the Coordinate Bench wherein exactly similar issue was decided by the Tribunal in assessee's favour. 4. I have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below and found from the record that the assessee is a salaried employee. The AO received information which indicated that the during the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased a plot measuring 291.66 sq. feet in the residential project "Revenue Residency" (Nizi Khatedar Residential scheme) at village Bharatsingh, Jaishinghpur- Muhana Road, Bhankr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umstances, the addition made on account of alleged on-money paid on purchase of plot was deleted by the Tribunal after having the following observation: "8. In the assessment order, the AO alleged that the assessee has paid to the seller Shri Madan Mohan Gupta on money of Rs. 4,66,660/- for the purchase of plot No. 84 having total area of 233.33 Sq. yards. 9. In reply to the same, assessee submitted as under: "a. That the allegation of ld. AO is baseless and imaginary and not maintainable. b. The ld. AO has relied upon the statement of Shri Madan Mohan Gupta recorded by the I.T. Authorities on 23/05/2013 during the course of search. But from reading the reply given by Shri Madan Mohan Gupta in the stateme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mount to violation of principle of natural justice, a serious flaw which makes the order null and void. 11. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 wherein it was 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. The precise observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was as under:- "Not allowing the appellant to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as mentioned above. 12. Reliance can also be placed on the decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Ashish International in ITA No. 4299/Mum/2009 dated 22/02/2011, wherein Court held as under: "The question raised in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of bogus purchases allegedly made by the assessee from M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. According to the revenue, the Director of M/s. Thakkar Agro Industrial Chem Supplies P. Ltd. in his statement had stated that there were no sales / purchases but the transactions were only accommodation bills not involving any transactions. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that the assessee had disputed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ordingly, AO is directed to delete the addition so made. 15. Before parting with the matter, I observe that Ld. AR had placed on record order of ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Navrattan Kothari vs ACIT in ITA No. 425/JP/2017 in which proceedings initiated u/s 148 was quashed. However, the facts of this case are entirely distinguishable from the facts of instant case, in so far as in the case of Navratan Kothari (supra) reopening of assessment after four years of assessment framed u/s 143(3)/153 was quashed, whereas in the instant case, no assessment was framed u/s 143(3) and only return was processed u/s 143(1). Accordingly, it is not going to help the assessee in any manner. 16. In the result appeal of assessee is allow....