M/S. Tiles Art, Morbi vs The Acit/Dcit Cen. Cir.-2, Rajkot on 20 August, 2024
6.6 With regard to contention of the appellant that the AO has not provided cross-
examination, it is observed that entire addition has been made based upon
investigation report/search report in case of search carried out in the case of Shi
Hiren Khimjibhai Kalariya and also with the group cases of "Coral Group of
Morbi from which it is revealed that said person along with his entire group
including the appellant are engaged in the unaccounted transactions. Reliance is
also placed on decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the
case of Amrapali Fincap Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Settlement Commission [2016] 73
taxmann.com 97 wherein it is held that "Where Settlement Commission denied
assessee for cross-examination of different witnesses, whose statements were
recorded behind its back, and relying upon statements of these witnesses to some
extent rejected application for settlement, since Settlement Commission had also
taken into consideration other facts available on record, there was no scope for
interference." It is pertinent to note that even jurisdictional ITAT and High court
on identical facts have decided similar issue in favour of department in this case,
the assessee had requested the Settlement Commission for cross-examination of
one Shirish C Shah (S), accommodation entry provider, whose statements had
been relied upon by the Department The Hon'ble Settlement Commission had
rejected application of assessee who filed a writ against order of Settlement
Commission raising denial of cross-examination as one of the contentions The
Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court held that since Settlement Commission, besides
relying upon statements of 'S' and other witnesses, had also taken into
consideration other facts available on record, there was no scope for interference
in order of Settlement Commission."