TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r. Jagdish Sharma, Tax Consultant working with Mr. Ashok T. Upadhye, Chartered Accountant is placed on record. It is also stated that e-mail id of the CA [email protected] was registered on the Income Tax portal and the assessee was not aware about the passing of the impugned order. Affidavit has also been filed by the assessee mentioning the facts and reasons which gave rise to the said delay. 3. Having gone through the reasons giving rise to the delay in filing of appeal, we are satisfied that 'reasonable cause' prevented the assessee to file the appeal within the stipulated time. We note that the delay is not intentional and assessee would not have gained from filing the appeal with a delay. We therefore in light of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay of 377 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 4. We will first take up ITA No.2614/PUN/2024. Assessee has filed the following modified groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l Greens, notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued. In response, the assessee filed the return of income on 06.11.2019 declaring same income, i.e. Rs. 38,02,270/-. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, assessee was asked to explain the source of cash of Rs. 56,80,060/- for which ld. AO has referred to an entry in the seized material found during the course of search of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. and in this entry there is reference of Flat No.3501, Tower 8, Area 1740, mentioning three figures Rs. 1,90,19,940/- Rs. 24,70,000/- and Rs. 56,80,060/-. Ld. AO has alleged that since the amount of Rs. 1,90,19,940/- has been paid by the assessee through cheque therefore the balance amount of Rs. 56,80,060/- must have been paid by the assessee in cash. However, assessee during the course of proceedings denied to have made any such cash payment/on- money of Rs. 56,80,060/-. Assessee has also submitted that he has never met Mr. Subodh Runwal and for carrying out all the transactions of purchase of flat her only negotiated with Sales Team and not directly with the Director. However, ld. AO was not satisfied with the same and concluded the proceedings and made addition u/s.69 of the Act at Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zed material during the course of search carried out in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt. Ltd. u/s.132 of the Act observed that the agreed consideration is Rs. 2.47 crore and the difference amount which is appearing in this entry of the Excel Sheet at Rs. 56,80,060/- is the on- money which the assessee has paid through cash. 11. Before going into merits of the case, ld. Counsel for the assessee has raised the legal issue stating that the AO prior to making the addition in the hands of assessee based on third party statement ought to have given a copy of statement of Mr. Subodh Runwal recorded u/s.132 of the Act and also should have provided the opportunity of cross examination. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3, CIT Vs. Sunita Dhadda in Income Tax Appeal No.197/2012 dated 31.07.2017 and also the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. ITO - ITA Nos. 1490 and 1491/Ahd/2025 dated 06.11.2025. 12. We on going through the decision of Coordinate Bench in the case Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Li....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y stated that cross-examination 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 to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross- examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers/witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross- examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross- examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter cam....