2026 (5) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ld. Commissioner"] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief relevant facts for adjudication of this appeal are that the Assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 29th September 2013, declaring total income of Rs. 84,65,238/-, which was assessed under section 143(3) of the Act, vide assessment order dated 16th October 2015. 3. Subsequently, information was received through the Insight Portal from the office of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Mumbai, to the effect that a search and seizure action had been carried out in the case of Shri Deepak Jain. During the course of investigation, it was ascertained that Shri Deepak Jain....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ued under section 133(6) were not complied with; * There were discrepancies in the addresses of the lender; 8. The Assessing Officer also observed that the financials of the lender companies reflected disproportionate turnover vis-à-vis its infrastructure and expenses. 9. Thus, on the aforesaid reasons, the AO ultimately by passing assessment order dated 26-05-2023 treated the transacted amount of Rs. 1,09,53,000/- having been received by the Assessee from M/s Surya Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., as unexplained money under section 69A read with section 115BBE of the Act, 10. The Assessee being aggrieved with addition made and initiation of reopening of assessment proceedings, preferred 1st appeal before the Ld. Commissioner an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, including ITRs, financial statements, confirmations, and bank statements of the lenders. Further, the addition has been made primarily on the basis of the statement of Shri Deepak Jain. However: he was not a director in the lender company during the relevant assessment year. Further no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the Assessee despite specific request and therefore this constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs, Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II (2015, 62 taxmann.com 3 SC) by observing and holding as under: "Not allowing the Assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were relied upon is a ser....