TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee are as under: 1. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 45,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer u/s 69B behind the back of appellant. 2. Whether in law and on facts and circumstances the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not providing opportunity to appellant to argue before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the ground or grounds of appeal either before or at the time of appeal. 3. The brief stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14 on March 23, 2014, declaring income of Rs. 9,87,670/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... attorney holder had brief the assessee and brought Shri Ajay (Sindhwani as his counsel. Both of them have not negatived that Shri Ashish Purankar is not power of attorney holder. The statement of Smt. Chutki Bai dated 10.02.2016 has been recorded in presence of two witnesses Shri Chandra Kumar and Shri Vyas Narayan. The assessing officer has passed the order on 08.03.2016 whereas he had recorded statement of legal heir of Shri Nardha on 10.02.2016. The statement recorded by the AO was confronted by the AO to the assessee and it was incumbent upon the assessee to request the AO to call the witnesses for cross examination which he did not do. Rather he had alleged the legal hears of the seller of the land with the theory of the conspiracy. O....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with one of the coparcener and legally having right of ownership of the land. The affidavits furnished by Dak by the assessee are nothing but and after thought to undo the statement recorded under oath by the quasi-judicial authority. In fact, the AO has recorded the statement of the two persons who had inherent right in the property which the assessee claims to have purchase only from the deceased Nardha. It is a fact that a deceased person cannot attend the court and court has to consider the legal heir of the deceased but in this case it is not only legal heirs whose statements had been recorded by the AO but also they are having interest in the land in the eyes of law having right to maintenance and also in capacity of coparcener. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of statements of Smt. Chutki Bai and Shri Jaswant Kumar Sonant, but the opportunity to cross-examine such a person was not granted to the assessee. In reply before the Ld. AO, the assessee categorically mentioned that the assessee has never entered into any agreement with so-called Smt. Chutki Bhai and Jaswant Kumar Sonant; neither the assessee has ever mate with them or had interacted with them in any case while dealing with the purchase of land from Mr. Nardha. Ld. AR further drew our attention to the order of Ld. CIT (A), wherein the assessee has categorically raised the ground that the addition on account of the alleged investment of Rs. 45,00,000/- in the purchase of property was made without affording any opportunity to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on and perused the material available on record. On going through the facts of the case, it is evident that the assessee was confronted by the AO with the statements of the third party, on which the assessee has rebutted that such statements are not factually correct and, therefore, the same cannot be used against the assessee, but Ld. AO has discarded such submissions of the assessee without providing the opportunity to cross-examine the third party in the absence of any prayer of the assessee. To substantiate his contention, the assessee has also submitted that Mr. Dile Suryavanshi, the prime witness, should be called to take his statement to establish the correctness of the fact than has been cropped up from the statements of Smt. Chutki....