TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 1325
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the department. On 12th September 2023 the Tribunal has again noted this fact and past history of adjournments as under: "Ld. CIT-DR is not present. However, an application from the ITO, office of the ld. CIT-DR has been filed for seeking adjournment of the hearing of entire cases on board today and Mr. K.K. Singh, ITO is present in person. It transpires from the record that hearing of this group of old appeals is being adjourned for last one year either at the request of Department or due to non-appearance of ld. DR. The hearings of these appeals have already been adjourned for more than 25 times in the past. This Tribunal had time and again expressed its concern about the delay of the hearing and disposal of these old appeals due to non-representation on behalf of the Department. Specific orders have been passed by this Tribunal on various dates i.e. 09.11.2022 and thereafter, 12.4.2023, whereby the Department was directed to avoid further delay in disposal of these old appeals. Further, ld. Sr. Counsel representing the assessee has been appearing regularly to argue these matters but due to adjournments being sought by the DRs, the matters could not be heard on the ear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ving opportunity to the assessee to cross examine. (v) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the fact that the AO summons as many as about 1500 people obtained the statement on oath at the back of the assessee without bringing the said information/statement on record and provide the copies of the same to the assessee which is in violation of principles of natural justice. (vi) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO in absence of any material much less incriminating to show that the assessee received illegal rectification by misusing his official position. (vii) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in no justification in confirming the addition made by the AO based on the assumption and presumption that the assessee received illegal rectification and investing the same in purchase of property and other assets. (viii) Ld. CIT(A) has erred and not justifying in confirming the addition made by the AO which is a double addition by making addition on account of illegal rectification and again on account of investments in properties and other assets. (ix) The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not justified in confirming the addition....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Shri H M Joshi, the father of the Appellant Assessee represented his undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 853.53.585/- and which is upheld by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal is incorrect in stating that 'no documentary evidence has been submitted in support of his contentions' when in fact the Appellant Assessee (and his father in his assessment) provided overwhelming evidence in support of all the claims made by him repeatedly requested the Assessing Officer to examine the same as can be seen from the assessment record. Having done all that was necessary in the circumstances, the findings of the Assessing Officer as also of the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal are perverse. It is the Assessing Officer who has refrained from making a true and fair enquiry putting the blame on the Appellant Assessee. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal has with out dealing with the specific grounds raised by the Appellant Assessee conceded with what the Assessing Officer has stated; the addition of Rs. 853,53,585/- thus needs to be deleted; 5. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Assessing Officer on account of cash found from the personal briefcase of Shri Arvind Joshi on arrival from Delhi. 8. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in para 8.9 in treating the cash found Rs. 1,03,000/- from the purse of Mrs. Tinoo Joshi as the undisclosed income of the Appellant Assessee. 9. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in para 10.2 in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,50,000/- estimated to be the cost of liquor contained in the bottles found at the residential premises of the Appellant Assessee. These bottles were in fact empty and no addition could be made in absence of any evidence to the contrary. These bottles were not seized at the time of search. The addition needs to be deleted. 10. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in para 12.5 in making an addition of Rs. 1 Crore on account of five purchase agreements of Rs. 20 lacs each seized from the residential premises of the Appellant Assessee. The addition made is bad in law in view of the fact that there is no property mentioned in the agreements nor the same is corroborated from the examination o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to Shri Pavan Agarwal. The addition made is not supported by documentary evidence that directly and conclusively establishes the correctness of the transaction nor the nexus with the Appellant Assessee has been proved. 15. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified para in 18.3 in confirming the addition of Rs. 94.480/- made on account of Bombay trip. mobile purchase allegedly on the ground that the Appellant Assessee could not prove the same with any documentary evidence: the same is devoid of merit in view of the submissions made by the Appellant Assessee; the same needs to be deleted: 16. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.20.200/- in para 20.2 on account of payment to Nelanchal Society, being Society charges against flat owned an declared by the Appellant Assessee to the Govt. being beyond the period of enquiry: 17. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming the addition in para no.23 on account of payment to Progressive Travels of Rs. 1,80,893/-; the Assessing Officer relied on the statement made by the owner of M/s Progressiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st in addition of Rs. 83.14 lacs in the Impugned Assessment Order. The mistake need rectification. The addition of Rs. 83.14 lacs is made purely on the imagination of the Assessing Officer without reference to any evidence on record. 24. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming in addition of Rs. 12.50 lacs. Rs. 13.75 lacs in the year 2009-10 and Rs. 178.15 lacs in the year 2010-11 on account of alleged gratification from contractors etc. The same is based on loose paper sheets being dumb documents or the statement of Shri S.P. Kohli which is inadmissible in law. 25. The the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 94,20,000/- for the year 2008-09 and Rs. 390.28 lacs in para 38 of the appeal order on account of alleged investment made through shri S.P. Kohli and his family. It was proved before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal that the Appellant Assessee has no nexus. whatsoever, with shri S.P. Kohli, his business concern or his family members. Shri S.P. Kohli and his family are independent assessees for the past many years. 26. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as to the purchase price. The Assessing Officer has placed reliance on statements taken behind the back of the assessee. The purchase price has been inflated 3 to 8 times. While doing so the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any document or evidence to show that the consideration for the alleged purchase has flown from the Appellant Assessee. 31. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming the addition of Rs. 1.90 lacs in 2008-09 and Rs. 26.84,900/- in the year 2009-10 on account of cash deposited in ICICI Bank A/c No.9336. The Appellant Assessee proved the source of these cash deposits and the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings and also at the time of appeal refrained from examining the documents and the witnesses produced by the Appellant Assessee. This fact has been recorded by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal prominently in the appeal order. The Assessing Officer, instead relied upon documents collected behind the back of the assessee. As at other places the Assessing Officer here also states that the Appellant Assessee was confronted with the documents while all through the proceedings the assesse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sessee. As at other places the Assessing Officer here also states that the Appellant Assessee was confronted with the documents while all through the proceedings the assessee has never been confronted with any document. 35. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming in addition of Rs. 10,000/- as per para 49 of the appeal order on account of alleged deposit of cash in the account of Mrs.Nirmala Joshi. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is illegal there being no evidence of any nature, whatsoever, to show that the deposit was made by the Appellant Assessee. 36. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in confirming in para 52.2 addition on account of cash deposit in the bank account of m/s Ethos Exports Pvt. Ltd. Rs. 17.48.290/- in 2004-05: Rs. 12.50,000/- in 2006-07, Rs. 15.93.940/- in 2008-09 and Rs. 8.1 lacs in 2009-10. It was proved before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal that Ethos Exports Pvt. Ltd. is independent entity and there is no connectivity or positive nexus between any transaction done by the said Company. The Assessing Officer has also not produced any documentary eviden....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the parents of the Appellant Assessee as the benami investment of the Appellant Assessee Rs. 5.71.234/- in 2007-08, Rs. 22.20.952/- in 2008-09 and Rs. 2.77.497 in 2009-10. It was proved before the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal that the said investment has been made by the parents themselves. It was proved by producing documentary evidence that the father of the Appellant Assessee had substantial income from pension (tax free u/s 10 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as he is a gallantry award winner) further abundant evidence was provided in respect of his agricultural income. The fact that the alleged investment had been made by the parents was mentioned in the statement made at the time of search also. The income and the investment was corroborated from bank account also. Contrary to this, the Assessing Officer has not produced any evidence to prove the addition. 41. That the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal was not justified in para 55 in considering the investment of Rs. 3.54.54.604/- in the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance. The Appellant Assessee produced over whelming evidence to contradict the allegations made by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant Assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Impugned Assessment Order. Assuming but not admitting, in case the finding of the Assessing Officer, confirmed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal, regarding unlawful gratification from contractors etc is assumed to be correct, then all the investment in the various properties get automatically explained. To elaborate, once the Assessing Officer has considered illegal gratification of a certain amount as the unexplained income of the assessee, then the investment of the same amount in properties cannot be treated as unexplained and added to the income of the assessee once again. Without prejudice to the right of the assessee and arguments that the Appellant Assessee may put forth. The double addition needs to be deleted. The Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal has failed to grant relief that was due to the Appellant Assessee on this count. 46. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned appeal order passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax - Appeal is contrary to law, materially incorrect and unsustainable in law as well as on facts. 47. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.Commissioner of Inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... also reproduced by the CIT(A) in para 2.1 & 2.2 of the impugned order. The AO has requisitioned information from the Lokayukt and has made the additions on the basis of the said information without confronting the assessee of the said information collected behind the back of the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the information and evidence collected by the AO at the back of the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee is in violation of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the father of the assessee Shri H.M. Joshi also filed his return of income in pursuance of notices u/s 153A wherein he has disclosed his undisclosed income in the nature of capital gains arising on the sale of agricultural land and also the agricultural income. 5.2 Ld. Sr. Counsel has submitted that the AO has used the statement of Shri H.M. Joshi father of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act without giving opportunity to cross examine and further Shri H.M. Joshi filed detailed affidavit along with relevant documentary evidences to show that the cash found in the premises of the assessee as well as loose papers, diaries, documents etc. be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel has submitted that the conclusion of the AO that the notings in the loose papers are in the handwriting of the assessee is without any valid evidence. Even otherwise when the objections of the assessee as well as opportunity to cross examine the witness was not considered by the AO then the said report obtained on the back of the assessee cannot be basis of the assessment order. Ld. AO has made huge addition on the basis of statements recorded behind the back of the assessee without confronting with such adverse statements to the assessee prior to their use in the assessment order nor was any opportunity of cross examination of such adverse witnesses afforded to assessee by the AO. The assessee came to know about such statement for the first time only when he received copies of the assessment orders along with statements as annexed to the assessment order. The AO made huge addition of more than 48 crores on the basis of the statement of Shri S.P. Kohli without affording any opportunity of cross examination of such person to the assessee. Further the addition is based on statement which has been later on retracted by the said person. 5.4 Ld. Sr. Counsel for the assessee has....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r submitted that there were other lacuna in the proceedings which also vitiates the assessment order. He has pointed out that the statement of Shri H.M. Joshi has been relied upon by the AO whereas the said statement was recorded at odd hours of a person of more than 84 years old. He has referred to the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and submitted that the statement was continued on 4th & 5th of February 2010 as it is evident from the statement recording time and date as 3;00 AM on 5th February 2010. The AO has heavily relied upon the statement of Shri H.M. Joshi but completely ignored the affidavit filed by the Shri H.M. Joshi who was about 84 years old at the time of search and therefore, recording of the statement at odd hours cannot be treated as voluntary statement and consequently cannot be a sole basis of addition. In support of his contention he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of Kailash Ben Manharilal Choksy vs. CIT 328 ITR 411 and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has observed that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act at mid-night, the person would not be in position to make any correct or conscious disclosure in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....verification and examination because of the facts that the AO has framed assessment solely on the basis of assumption that the assessee has received illegal money by misusing of his official position in the Government Department without any tangible material. He has further submitted that it is important to note that none of documents, loose papers, dairies etc. containing the name of the assessee but the documents, notes etc. indicate the transactions in the name of father, mother and sister of the assessee who have also admitted the said transactions. He has also raised the objection against statement of Shri H.M. Joshi recorded u/s 132(4) and used against the assessee and submitted that when the said statement was not recorded in the presence of the assessee and at the place of the assessee then the said statement of Shri H.M. Joshi cannot be used against the assessee. He has pointed out that there were misleading questions put to Mr. H.M. Joshi instead of direct and relevant questions and therefore, the said statements cannot be considered as incriminating material against the assessee. 6. We have considered the rival submission as well as relevant material on record. There ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quently issued notices u/s 153A of the Act for A.Ys.2004-05 to 2009-10 and u/s 143(2) for A.Y.2010-11. A composite assessment order was passed on 30.12.2011 whereby the AO has made various additions and year wise details of the additions are given at page no.1318 to 1329 as under: In view of the discussion made above and material available on record, income of the assessee is determined as under:- A.Y.2004-2005 1. Income as per Original return Rs. 366397 2. Income as per Received return (153A) Rs. 366397 Add:- Income Surrendered Rs. 0 As Per Para (4.1) Cash Flow Arvind Joshi Rs. 359518 As Per Para (4.2) Cash Flow H.M. Joshi Rs. 9259185 As Per Para (4.3) Cash Flow Ethos Export Rs. 1635000 As Per Para (7-a) cash advance Rs. 40410000 As Per Para (7-b) unexplained investment Rs. 40410000 As Per Para (8-c) Jewellery at H.M. Joshi Rs. 6553 As Per Para (9.103) Investment Rs. 1075000 As Para (9.226) Rs. 37838000 As Per Para (10.10) Bank Rs. 50000 &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As Per Para (10.31) Bank Rs. 10000 As Per Para (10.35(iv)) Bank Rs. 351000 As Per Para (10.35(x)) Bank Rs. 135000 As Per Para (10.35(xi) Bank Rs. 88000 As Per Para (10.35(xii) Bank Rs. 25000 As Per Para (10.35(xiii) Bank Rs. 180000 As Per Para (10.35(xviii) Bank Rs. 10000 As Per Para (10.35(xix) Bank Rs. 115000 As Per Para (10.35(xxi) Bank Rs. 102000 As Per Para (10.35(xxii) Bank Rs. 141000 As Per Para (10.35(xxiii) Bank Rs. 305000 As Per Para (10.35(xxiv) Bank Rs. 30000 As Per Para (10.35(xxvi) Bank Rs. 57000 As Per Para (10.35(xxix) Bank Rs. 351000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxii) Bank Rs. 336000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiv) Bank Rs. 1085000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxviii) Bank Rs. 925000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxix) Bank Rs. 1160000 As Per Para (13.4) Rs. 533571 As Per Para (14.2 a.) Rs. 393660 As Per Para (14.2 b.) R....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5(xxiv) Bank Rs. 105000 As Per Para (10.35(xxvi) Bank Rs. 22000 As Per Para (10.35(xxix) Bank Rs. 870000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxii) Bank Rs. 830000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiv) Bank Rs. 50000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxv) Bank Rs. 3354000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxvi) Bank Rs. 30000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxviii) Bank Rs. 210000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxix) Bank Rs. 60000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxi) Bank Rs. 435000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxv) Bank Rs. 1325000 As Per Para (13.4) Simant Kohli Rs. 1503328 As Per Para (13.4) JK Wines Rs. 2400000 As Per Para (14.2 a.) Rs. 437400 As Per Para (14.2 b.) Rs. 437400 As Per Para (14.3) Rs. 495691 As Per Para (15.4) Rs. 7500000 Income Assessed Rs. 114864813 Round Off Rs. 114864813 Assessed as above. Charged interest U/s 234A, 234B. 234C & 234D as per rules. Give credit of taxes paid. Issue demand notice and challan. Penalty u/s 271(1)(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ra (10.35(xxv) Bank Rs. 460000 As Per Para (10.35(xxx) Bank Rs. 745000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxii) Bank Rs. 1298000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiii) Bank Rs. 15000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiv) Bank Rs. 90000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxv) Bank Rs. 3075000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxi) Bank Rs. 52000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxii) Bank Rs. 1105000 As Per Para (11.9) Rs. 650000 As Per Para (11.14) Investment Rs. 1100000 As Per Para (11.15) Rs. 571234 As Per Para (12.26 B) Rs. 1123200 As Per Para (12.26 C) Rs. 2995200 As Per Para (12.26 D) Rs. 1123200 As Per Para (13.4) Rs. 3600000 As Per Para (14.1) Agriculture Rs. 132000 As Per Para (14.1) Protectively Rs. 195000 As Per Para (14.2 a.) Rs. 540000 As Per Para (14.2 b.) Rs. 540000 As Per Para (14.3) Rs. 495691 As Per Para (15.4) Rs. 7500000 Income Assessed Rs. 15....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... As Per Para (10.35(xvii) Bank Rs. 20000 As Per Para (10.35(xix) Bank Rs. 65000 As Per Para (10.35(xxi) Bank Rs. 30000 As Per Para (10.35(xxiv) Bank Rs. 85000 As Per Para (10.35(xxv) Bank Rs. 71000 As Per Para (10.35(xxx) Bank Rs. 350000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxii) Bank Rs. 100000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiii) Bank Rs. 30000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxv) Bank Rs. 609500 As Per Para (10.35(xxxvii) Bank Rs. 86000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxx) Bank Rs. 35000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxi) Bank Rs. 606000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxii) Bank Rs. 365000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxv) Bank Rs. 515644 As Per Para (10.35(xxxxvi) Bank Rs. 580100 As Per Para (11.9) Rs. 3010000 As Per Para (11.15) Rs. 2448302 As Per Para (11.16) Rs. 1497239 As Per Para (12.26) Rs. 2996000 As Per Para (12.26 A) Rs. 4843900 As Per Para (12.26 C) Rs. 35....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Para (10.18) Bank Rs. 165750 As Per Para (10.34) Bank Rs. 810000 As Per Para (10.35(ii)) Bank Rs. 3210000 As Per Para (10.35(v)) Bank Rs. 420000 As Per Para (10.35(ix)) Bank Rs. 35000 As Per Para (10.35(x)) Bank Rs. 105000 As Per Para (10.35(xi) Bank Rs. 2185000 As Per Para (10.35(xii) Bank Rs. 655000 As Per Para (10.35(xvi) Bank Rs. 14248000 As Per Para (10.35(xvii) Bank Rs. 2742000 As Per Para (10.35(xviii) Bank Rs. 49000 As Per Para (10.35(xix) Bank Rs. 31000 As Per Para (10.35(xxi) Bank Rs. 20000 As Per Para (10.35(xxii) Bank Rs. 738700 As Per Para (10.35(xxiii) Bank Rs. 76000 As Per Para (10.35(xxiv) Bank Rs. 42000 As Per Para (10.35(xxx) Bank Rs. 320000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxii) Bank Rs. 185000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxiii) Bank Rs. 20000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxvii) Bank Rs. 32000 As Per Para (10.35(xxxx) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0 As Per Para (7-c) Pawan Agrawal Rs. 6100000 As Per Para (7-c) RAGH, AD, AG Rs. 12825000 As Per Para (7-d) Back side of Page 87 Rs. 16500000 As Per Para (7-e) Page 87 Rs. 33600000 As Per Para (7-f) Page 88 Rs. 8314000 As Per Para (7-g) gratifications received Rs. 178150000 As Per Para (8-b) unexplained investment Rs. 10000 As Per Para (9.71) Rs. 3300000 As Para (9.226) Rs. 37838000 As Per Para (10.5) Bank Rs. 128200 As Per Para (10.15) Bank Rs. 460000 As Per Para (10.17) Bank Rs. 1500 As Per Para (10.18) Bank Rs. 318400 As Per Para (10.35(v)) Bank Rs. 350000 As Per Para (10.35(viii)) Bank Rs. 230000 As Per Para (10.35(ix)) Bank Rs. 93000 As Per Para (10.35(xiv) Bank Rs. 90000 As Per Para (10.35(xvi) Bank Rs. 6635000 As Per Para (10.35(xvii) Bank Rs. 1605100 As Per Para (10.35(xix) Bank Rs. 170000 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e back of the assessee. Therefore, the said information/report of DSP Lokayukt MP used by the AO is in violation of principle of natural justice. There is no quarrel on the point that if any evidence or statement is made the basis of the assessment order without allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness or to rebut the evidence amounts to violation of principle of natural justice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra) in apra 6 & 7 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 adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner was based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeding under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the question of cross examination by the assessee of the investigating officer in the assessment proceedings does not arise as it would be a futile exercise when the said report as well as the witnesses are to be examined before the concerned court of law in the appropriate proceedings and assessee would be having its remedy under the relevant law and procedure. However, the assessee has a right to be confronted with the information before the same is used against the assessee. Though the CIT(A) has already dealt with all these issues however at this stage we are not going into merits of the issue as the Ld. Sr. counsel has restricted his arguments only on the point of violation of principle of natural justice. The department has not disputed the fact as pointed out by the assessee that the statements were first time provided to the assessee along with assessment order being annexures to the assessment order. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances when the report/statements of DSP Lokayukt MP has been obtained by the AO and the same was supplied to the assessee only after the assessment order was passed. We are of the opi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as submitted that the statement of Shri H.M. Joshi recorded u/s 132(4) cannot be treated as a voluntary statement as the said statement was recorded at odd hours of a person of about 84 years old. 13. Having considered the facts and surrounding circumstances of the case we do not agree with the contention of the Ld. Sr. counsel that the statement of Shri H.M. Joshi recorded u/s 132(4) cannot be treated as voluntary statement particularly when Shri H.M. Joshi is a retired Director General of Police, M.P. and having vast experience of investigation and handling intense situation. Therefore, he is not supposed to be perturbed or intimidated while answering the question at the time of statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act. Further there is nothing reflected either from the manner in which statement was recorded or the language of the question and answers recorded in the statements. To suggest any coercion from team. Therefore, in absence of any circumstances indicating any situation leading to disorientation or intimidation of Shri H.M. Joshi, the question of any coercion or undue pressure is completely ruled out. Further Shri H.M. Joshi is not a third person witness but he is on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s additions made by the A.O. 62.1 Appellant's submissions have been considered carefully along with the assessment order. Assessment records have also been perused. Firstly, the appellant has filed returns u/s 153A as late as on 04.07.2011 when notices u/s 153A been found issued on 19.01.2011 & 23.01.2011. Thereafter also the appellant has adopted evasive, ambiguous and delaying attitude and tactics in supplying details and evidences in response to detailed questionnaire issued by the A.O. covering almost all the issues and seized documents in case of the appellant. This has been elaborately discussed by the A.O. in Pg. No. 17 to 115 of the assessment order. Appellant's contention regarding non supply of various documents and statements to him are also not found acceptable. As per the assessment records, the same have been duly supplied/sent to the appellant by the A.O. The only lacuna found is that the appellant has not been given opportunity to cross examine these various persons. But, as discussed in detail at various portions of this order, this defect is not found fatal to the assessment proceedings as in their statements these parties merely explained the tra....