Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Suresh Kumar Chug, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-62(1), New Delhi on 29 November, 2018 cites

M/S Andaman Sea Food Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income Tax Kol Iv on 8 January, 2015

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the assessment as well as impugned order and the submissions filed by the Assessee before the Ld. CIT(A). I find that the case laws relied upon by the Ld. DR are on the merits of the case, however, the ground argued before the Tribunal is relating to confirmation of addition which was made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee without giving his an opportunity to rebut the same in violation of the principle of natural justice, hence, the same are not applicable here. I find considerable cogency in the contention raised by the assessee's counsel that addition was made on the basis of material collected at the back of the assessee without giving him an opportunity to rebut/cross 5 examine the same, which was also raised before the Ld. CIT(A), who wrongly held that when the appellant has failed to appear before AO for the personal deposition u/s. 131 of the I.T. Act and now the assessee is claiming opportunity of cross examination and wrongly upheld the AO's order, which is not proper. I further note that exactly on the similar facts and circumstances the ITAT, SMC, Delhi Bench vide its order dated 06.11.2018 passed in ITA No. 3510/Del/2018 (AY 2014-15) in the case of Smt. Jyoti Gupta vs. ITO wherein, the SMC Bench has considered the statement of Vikrant Kayan and has held that since the impugned addition was made on the statement of Sh. Vikrant Kayan without providing any opportunity to the assessee to cross examine the same and Ld. CIT(A) has not considered the same ground, which is in violation of principle of natural justice and against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber vs. CIT decided in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

M/S.Andaman Timbers Industries Ltd vs The Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) on 2 July, 2007

"13. Merely on the strength of statement of third party i.e. Shri Vikrant Kayan cannot justify the impugned additions. Moreso, when specific request was made by the assessee for allowing cross examination was denied by the Assessing Officer. The first appellate 6 authority also did not consider it fit to allow cross-examination. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and against the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Vs. CIT Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006 wherein it has been held as under:
Kerala High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 25 - C N Nair - Full Document
1