TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 239
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an assessment order passed by the assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, on 30.11.2018. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12, is barred by limitation by 128 days. The assessee has moved a petition requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The contents of the petition for condonation of delay is reproduced below: "In respect of the above, I would like to submit that I have filed an appeal under section 253(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 18.06.2025. vide ITA No. 678/SRT/2025 against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) relating to A.Y. 2011-12, which was passed on 12.12.2024 and uploaded on the Income Tax e-filing portal under e-proceedings on the same date. Thou....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....led to explain the sufficient cause. Therefore, delay should not be condoned and appeal of the assessee may be dismissed, on account of delay. 4.I heard the party on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 5.The solitary grievance of the assessee in this appeal, is that the assessment order was framed u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, however, the assessment order ought to have been framed u/s 153C of the Act and opportunity of cross-examination was not provided to the assessee. 6. Brief facts qua the issue are that the original return of income for assessment year (AY) 2011-12, was filed by the assessee, on 27.09.2011, declaring total income ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the hands of the assessee. 7. During the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer also issued notices to the assessee to explain the transaction. In response, to the notices of the assessing officer, the assessee submitted his reply before the assessing officer, which is reproduced below: "5. In response to the show cause Notice, the assessee submitted its reply of showcause notice vide its letter dated 26.11.2018, which is pursued and placed on record and the relevant part is reproduced as under: "1. We request your goodself to provide us of incriminating documents based on which case of the assessee opened u/s. 148 of the Act. The details provided by your goodself is information passed on to your office by Dy....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. At the outset, the Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the assessee's case, under consideration, the assessment order was framed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, however, the assessment order should have been framed u/s. 153C of the Act, and for that, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, relied on the following judgements: (i) Ghanshyam Madhusudan Soni v. ITO, wd - 1, Modasa, ITA No. 296/AHD/2018, ITAT Ahemdabad (ii) M/s. Shagun Jewellers P. Ltd. V. Dy.CIT, Circle - 23(1), ITA No. 3165 to 3167/DEL/2023, ITAT Delhi (iii) Suresh C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kalra Glue Factory v. Sales Tax Tribunal [1987] 167 ITR 498 set- aside the order of the Tribunal as well as order in revision of High Court on the ground that "...the statements of a partner of another firm upon which the Sales Tax Tribunal relied, had not been tested by cross examinations." Therefore, I note that failure to allow cross examination sought by the assessee, is a gross violation of principles of nat....