TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 1910
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... officer in invoking Section 148 of the Income tax Act, which is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana has also erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer in making addition of Rs. 1,05,000 vide para one of the assessment order. Order and also in making addition of Rs. 13,100/- vide para two of the assessment order, as income from undisclosed sources. 3. That addition of Rs. 1,05,000/- and Rs. 13,100/- as para No. 2 above is unlawful, unsustainable and unwarranted and is against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. That interest u/s 234A and u/s 234B has been wrongly charged. 5. That penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) has bee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amount of Rs. 1 lakh should not be treated as income from undisclosed sources of the assessment year under consideration. In response to the said query, the assessee submitted a reply on 26.12.2002 wherein she has stated that she had purchased shares of M/s Pradish Exports Ltd (2500 shares, distinctive Nos. 1505501 to 1508000) through a share broker M/s Maheshwari Sons, Delhi and further stated that she had received sale proceeds of shares through demand draft. However, the stock broker denied the transactions. Accordingly a registered letter was issued to Sh. Hari Shanker Maheshwari at Delhi and Aligarh addresses requiring him to confirm whether Smt. Dhanwant Kaur (assessee) had any transaction regarding purchase and sales of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al vide its order dated 7.10.2004 upheld the order of CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,11,700/- made by the Assessing officer on the basis of information received from ADI (Inv.) Gurgaon being bogus claim of long term capital gain. In the case of Shri Surinder Singh, the assessee in his return of income for the assessment year 1995-96 disclosed capital gain earned from sale of shares transected by broker M/s Maheshwari & Sons. Investment in shares was made by the assessee in that case on 28.4.1993 and while framing assessment of that year, the Assessing officer has not doubted the investment in shares. The assessee sold the disputed shares on 26.9.1994 and the payment was received by the assessee by way of demand draft and sal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Maheshwari & Sons and got the draft made and this presumption is without any evidence. Finally, the CIT (A) held that the addition was made merely on the basis of statement of Shri Shanker Hari Maheswari, who was Departmental witness and the assessee ought to have been afforded to have an opportunity to cross examine him. The CIT (A) deleted the addition. 6. When the matter came up before the Tribunal, the Tribunal upheld the order of CIT(A), observing as under:- 5. We have heard both the parties and carefully considered their rival submissions. We have also examined the facts, evidence and material on record. The facts are not disputed by either of the sides. The only issue to decided is whether the Department should have provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allow him to cross-examine Anand Prakash. Despite these two requests, Anand Prakash was not allowed to be cross-examined by the assessee, a position which is not disputed before me by the department. The entire addition is based on the statement of Anand Prakash. As rightly pointed out, on behalf of the assessee, if this statement is ignored, there Is hardly any another direct evidence to Justify the addition. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to afford an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine Anand Prakash. He did not do so. The effect of the Assessing Officer's failure to do so is that the entire addition is bad. In the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram vs. CIT. 125 ITR 713, the Supreme Court held that if any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on cannot be sustained in the absence of any other evidence in support of the same. This position applies squarely to the present case. By respectfully following the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench, supra, we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the departmental appeal." 7. The facts of the present case are similar to that of Shri Surinder Singh of Ludhiana (supra). In the instant case, the assessee purchased 1000 shares on 2.6.1993 and the same were sold on 26.6.94, for Rs. 1,03,900/- which resulted in to long term capital gains. The assessee vide her letter dated 27.12.2002 made a request to the Assessing officer to confront all the documents especially statement of Shri Shanker Hari Maheshwari recorded by the concerned Dy....