TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 765
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment years 2016-2017 to 2022-2023. The said assessment proceedings were initiated based on a search conducted in the premises of the petitioner on 05.01.2022. (W.P.C.No.16952 of 2024 is taken as the leading case and hereinafter, the description of the parties and Exhibits shall be as described in the said writ petition). 2. After several communications as part of the enquiry based on such search, Ext.P8 show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, where the explanations offered by the petitioner for the unaccounted cash/transactions detected during the course of search was examined and rejected. One of the main explanations offered by the petitioner as to the unaccounted transaction was that, those were the income generated from the agricultural activities carried out by the petitioner in the property having an extent of 147 acres as claimed by the petitioner (about 40 acres as per the assessment order). 3. In Ext.P8 show cause notice, the assessing officer relied on the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer concerned, to arrive at the finding that, the property referred to by the petitioner is a rocky land, which is not suitable for cultivation. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sses, the assessing authority found that those statements cannot be accepted, as no reliable documents were produced to substantiate that, those witnesses had transactions with the petitioner in relation to the sale of agricultural products. With regard to the other witnesses, it is specifically observed in Ext.P18 that, the petitioner produced two other witnesses on 15.03.2024 and since the time granted was only upto 14.03.2024, the statements of those witnesses were not recorded. Thus, Ext.P18 happened to be passed by the assessing officer, finalizing the assessment, by rejecting the contentions and explanations offered by the petitioner, as to the unaccounted transaction detected in the inspection dated 05.01.2022. 6. These writ petitions are filed by the petitioner, in such circumstances, challenging the assessment order, which is produced as Ext.P18 in W.P.C.No.16952 of 2024 that relates the assessment years 2016-2017. In W.P.C.No.37198 of 2024 Ext.P16 assessment order was passed pertaining to the assessment year 2017-2018, in W.P.C.No.37127 of 2024 Ext.P14 assessment order for the assessment year 2018-2019, in W.P.C.No.37143 of 2024 Ext.P13 assessment order for the assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sses and their statements were recorded, evaluated and found to be not reliable. With regard to the other witnesses, the petitioner produced two witnesses on 15.03.2024 and since the time granted to the petitioner was only up to 14.03.2024, the statements of the said witnesses were not recorded. Thus, it is the specific case of the learned standing counsel that, reasonable opportunities were extended to the petitioner, to have a proper contest and the assessment order was passed after referring to all the contentions raised by the petitioner, with supporting reasons as well. Therefore, it is not necessary that an interference to be made by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly since the impugned assessment orders are appealable before the First Appellate Authority. 11. To substantiate the contention, learned senior counsel placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by this Court in Joint Commissioner, The Additional Director, The Additional Commissioner of Central Tax and Central Excise, Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs v. Nishad K.U, Union of India [2025(2) TMI 1247] and X.L. Interiors v. Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence), SGST Depar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....for agricultural purposes. Besides, it was also found that, as per the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer, the properties were cultivated with rubber, and agricultural activities like pineapple cultivation referred to by the petitioner was not possible. It was in these circumstances, the contentions of the petitioner were declined by the assessing officer and assessment was completed. 14. The challenge raised by the petitioner, as against the assessment order, is mainly because of the reason that, the petitioner was denied the opportunity to examine/cross examine the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer concerned, whose reports were relied on by the assessing officer. In this regard, the learned standing counsel for the respondents, relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Pirai Choodi (supra) to show that, as far as the right to cross examine the witnesses in a proceedings is concerned, it is not absolute. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision were also relied upon to substantiate the contention of the respondents that, even in a case involving denial of cross-examination, the petitioner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rounds on which the Assessing Officer declined the request for cross-examination, are entirely different from those involved in the present cases. 17. When the factual circumstances referred to in this case are taken into account, one crucial aspect to be noticed is that, as observed above, there is no dispute with regard to the relevance of the reports submitted by the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer concerned, in the matter of considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, as to the activities carried out by the petitioner in the properties. Of course, it is true that in the assessment order, apart from the reports of the Agricultural Officer as well as the Village Officer, some other materials were also relied on, which are the title deeds produced by the petitioner and also the inspection reports of the field officers of the Income Tax Department. Therefore, it was contended that, even apart from the reports of the Agricultural Officer and the Village Officer, there are other materials and therefore, the denial of cross examination of the Village Officer and the Agricultural Officer is not very crucial. 18. Upon examining the other materials on record....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ourse, as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the right to cross-examination in assessment proceedings is not an absolute right of the assessee and in all cases it need not be extended, even if it is asked for. However, it is well settled that, the denial of the right of cross-examination in appropriate cases, where such cross-examination is necessary to afford a fair opportunity to the assessee, amounts to a violation of the principles of natural justice. This Court has already held in Nishad K.U (supra), observed in paragraph No.15 as follows: "15. As regards the contention of the appellants that it is not the requirement of law to provide an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses since it is not an integral part of the principles of natural justice, we cannot but disagree with the stand of the appellants. It is now settled law that in every quasi-judicial proceedings, the rule of natural justice has to be followed. The rule of natural justice is the tenet of every adjudication proceedings, a violation of which renders the proceedings void. When courts are called upon to decide the validity of quasi-judicial proceedings on the groun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tions on 12.03.2024. Later, on the request of the petitioner, time was extended up to 14.03.2024, on which date, the petitioner produced only two witnesses, even though production of five witnesses were asked for. It is also discernible from the assessment order that, on the very next day, on 15.03.2024, the petitioner produced two witnesses, but they were not examined on the reason that, the time was extended only up to 14.03.2024. While considering these aspects, the crucial fact to be noted is that, even though the time is claimed to have extended up to 14.03.2024, there is no order to that effect. The same is having relevance because, in Ext.P11, which is a request made by the petitioner, he had specifically sought time up to 15.03.2024 and admittedly the petitioner had produced two witnesses on 14.03.2024 and the other two witnesses were produced on 15.03.2024. Therefore, in the absence of any specific reference of any specific order declining the request in Ext.P11 or limiting the extension of time only upto 14.03.2024, I am of the view that the petitioner could have been permitted to examine the two witnesses produced on 15.03.2024. Moreover, I have already found that, the a....