TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 622
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the facts and circumstances of the case, assessment order passed under Section 147 of the Act as sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law, illegal and void ab initio; 2. That without prejudice, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not rendering the notice issued under section 148 and consequent assessment bad in law as the satisfaction note recorded by the Ld. AO is invalid, bad in law and void ab initio 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the order of the Ld. AO whereby impugned addition amounting to Rs. 19,00,000/- in terms of the provisions of Section 69B of the Act merely relying on some loose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling Return of Income electronically for the year under consideration on 22.04.2023 declaring a total income of Rs. 3,23,970/-. The Ld. A.O. based on the incriminating material found during the search in the residence of Shri Krishna Sharma & Smt. SheetalSharma, observed that the assessee i.B., Smt. Bagwani Devi had purchased land part of Khasra no 492 KA, measuring 178.90 sq. mtrs., situated at Mauzan Tarla Nagal, Parwadoon, Dehradun from Shri Keshav Soin, on sale consideration of Rs. 24,87,000/- and made a cash payment of Rs. 19,00,000/- over and above the amount of sale deed. Since, the date of sale deed, detail of land /Khasra no., area and the sale consideration of the said plot as available on the State Government website, exactly mat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is clearly mentioned regarding payment of Rs. 19 lakhs apart from payment made through banking channel of Rs. 24.87 lakhs. Further submitted that the seized document clearly establishes the fact of payment of Rs. 19,00,000/- over and above the amount of sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Ld. Departmental Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities, sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The sole basis for making addition was the document seized in the premises of Sh. Krishna Sharma and Smt. Sheela Sharma during the search operation conducted u/s 132 of the Act on 02/02/2022, wherein in-front of Assessee's name two figures have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....anted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that crossexamination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal....