Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.48 seconds)

Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai on 28 February, 2025

cross examination of the adverse party. In this case, the assessee contended that the silver articles were purchased from 'R'. However, 'R' denied the transaction in his statement recorded behind the back of the assessee. The Assessing essing Officer made the addition without allowing cross- cross examination of 'R'. Copy of the statement of 'R' recorded was not provided to the assessee. The Assessing Officer also ignored the affidavit filed by the assessee. He solely relied on the statement of 'R' for the addition. The addition was deleted. 6.3.26 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (Hyd.-Trib.), Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in the hands of the assessee based on the entry of a transaction relating relati to a property deal in the books of 'B' who was a third party. No opportunity for cross-examination examination was afforded to the assessee with reference to the material gathered from the third party. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot base his assessment assessment on the statement and material collected by him to frame the assessment without affording opportunity of cross-examination.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 57 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deputy Commissioner, Chennai vs Subbian Muruganatham, Andalpuram on 2 July, 2025

6.13 In the case of B. Ramakrishnaiah v. ITO [2010] 39 SOT 379 (Hyd.-Trib.), the Assessing Officer made addition of a certain amount in the hands of the assessee based on the entry of a transaction relating to a property deal in the books of 'B' who was a third party. No opportunity for cross-examination was afforded to the assessee with reference to the material gathered from the third party. The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer cannot base his assessment on the statement and material collected by him to frame the assessment without affording opportunity of cross-examination. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of implied affording of opportunity advanced by the department that the statement of the assessee was recorded on the same issue. The addition was deleted.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1