Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.2 Further, with regard to the assessee's observation that the Assessing Officer has neither provided copies of statements of seized persons i.e. Sohanraj Mehta nor any opportunity to cross examination given to the assessee. The learned Departmental Representative stated that the Assessing Officer has not relied on statement of Shri Sohanraj Mehta while making the addition. There is no discussion of the said statement in the assessment order. When the Assessing Officer is not relying on the statement for making addition, so, there is no need to give its copy to the assessee. Secondly, a copy of assessee's letter dated 28.12.2011 furnished to the Assessing Officer during scrutiny proceedings clearly states that the assessee was given all information of seized documents by the Assessing Officer. Hence, the principles of natural justice have not been violated by the revenue. With regard to the identity of Shri Pradeep Runwal, it was stated on behalf of learned Departmental Representative that the seized documents mentioned Shri Pradeep Runwal from Pune. A search in the ITD database of the Income Tax Department shows only one Pradeep Runwal, which is the assessee. So, according to learned Departmental Representative, the person mentioned in seized documents in question is only Pradeep Runwal, so the action in the case of assessee is justified and the addition made in his hand should be sustained.