TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (5) TMI 2205
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The grounds of appeal filed by the assessee read as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in holding that the reopening of assessment by the Income Tax Officer- 10(2)(1), Mumbai (AO) u/s 147 was as per law. 2. The appellant prays that your honours hold that the reopening of assessment by the AO u/s 147 was bad in law and the consequential order passed u/s 143(3) rw.s. 147 is also bad in law. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that the AO had not given the appellant an opportunity to cross examine the parties who had stated before the Sales Tax Authorities that they had only given accommodation entries. As the principles of natural justice are violated, the order u/s. 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntly, the AO re-opened the assessment u/s 147. On the request of the assessee, the AO provided the reasons for re-opening the assessment. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. In ACIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. 291 ITR 500 (SC), it is held that intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is not an assessment and the notice u/s 148 issued by the AO was valid. In Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO (Mad) 340 ITR 454, CIT v. Ideal Garden Complex P. Ltd. (Mad) 340 ITR 609 and ACIT v. Maersk Global Service Centre (India) (P.) Ltd. (ITAT, Mum) 66 DTR 90, it is held that the only condition to be satisfied for re-opening the return of income processed u/s 143(1) is that the taxable income has escaped assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that in the assessment as well as appeal proceedings, the assessee had given detailed submissions regarding quantitative tally of opening stock, purchases, consumption/sales and closing stock of materials. Payment for these purchases were also made by account payee cheques which is not disputed. Considering the above facts, the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision in CIT v. Simit P. Sheth (2013) 356 ITR 451 (Guj) directed the AO to estimate profit @ 12.5% on the bogus purchases of Rs. 15,65,241/-. 6. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee submits that the appellant had in the first instance requested the AO to give them an opportunity to cross-examine these parties. However, the AO has w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the notices u/s 133(6) sent by the AO, during the course of reassessment proceedings, were returned back by the postal authorities as undelivered. Therefore, the AO was not in a position to give the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the above parties. A proper hearing must always include a fair opportunity to those who are parties in the controversy for correcting or contradicting anything prejudicial to their view. Cross-examination is allowed by procedural rules and evidently also by the rules of natural justice. Any witness who has been sworn on behalf of any party is liable to be cross-examined on behalf of the other party to the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Grocery Deal....