| The Tax Publishers2019 TaxPub(DT) 0602 (Del-Trib) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 143(3)
Since addition was made by AO on the basis of material collected at the back of assessee without giving him an opportunity to rebut/cross examine and CIT(A) had not considered the same ground, which was in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, addition made by AO was not justified.
|
Assessment - Addition made on the basis of material collected at the back of assessee - Violation of principles of natural justice -
Assessee was a contractor and the case was earlier selected for 'limited scrutiny' through CASS and further converted into complete scrutiny after recording of reason. In compliance thereof, assessee attended the case from time to time and furnished written submissions, which were examined by AO. He observed that assessee was an individual and during the relevant year, assessee had earned income under different heads. AO completed the assessment under section 143(3). Assessee contended that inference drawn by AO was only on the basis of material collected at back of assessee for which no opportunity to cross examine the same was provided to assessee and therefore, the said action of AO was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Held: Contention raised by assessee that addition was made on the basis of material collected at the back of assessee without giving him an opportunity to rebut/cross examine the same, which was also raised before CIT(A), who wrongly held that when assessee had failed to appear before AO for the personal deposition under section 131 and now assessee was claiming opportunity of cross examination and wrongly upheld order of AO, which was not proper. Therefore in violation of principles of natural justice, addition made by AO was not justified.
Followed:Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE, Kolkata-II in (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006, dt. 2-9-2015), CCE, Calcutta-II v. M/s. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. 2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (SC)Relied:Sanjay Bimalchand Jain L/H Shantidevi Bimalchand Jain v. The Principal Commissioner-I, Nagpur & Another in (Income Tax Appeal No. 18/2017, dt. 10-4-2017) : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 5257 (Bom-HC), Chandan Gupta v. CIT, Ludhiana in (ITA No. 196 of 2014 (O&M), dt. 16-9-2014), Balbir Chand Maini v. CIT-III, Ludhiana (2012) 340 ITR 161 (P&H-HC) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 657 (P&H-HC) Shri. Abhimanyu Soin v. The Asst. CIT 31, Garden Enclave Circle-VI I, Ludhiana 2018 (4) TMI 1620--ITAT CHANDIGARH Ratnakar M. Pujari v. ITO, Ward 25 (3) (3), Mumbai in (I .T.A. No.995/Mum/2012, dt. 3-8-2016) : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 4414 (Mum-Trib) Usha Chandresh Shah v. ITO in (I.T.A. No. 6858/Mum/2011, dt. 26-9-2014) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 3408 (Mum-Trib)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : In assessee's favour
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|