M/s. Natural Bio Organic Product, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,(OSD)Range-9, Surat

ITA 2399/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4380 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2399/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07) M/S NATURAL BIO ORGANIC PRODUCT B/2, GOLDEN PLAZA, ANKUR CHAR RASTA, A.K. ROAD, SURAT. (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD), RANGE 9, SURAT ( RESPONDENT) PAN: AAFFN5752M APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.J. SHAH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.L. KUREEL, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 -10-2013 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-V, SURAT DATED 29.05.2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF LOWER AUT HORITIES ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUF ACTURING AND SALE OF BIO ORGANIC FERTILIZER. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCO ME FOR A.Y. 06-07 ON 04.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF NIL AFTER CLAI MING DEDUCTION OF RS. ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 2 28,42,041/- UNDER SECTION 80JJA OF THE ACT. THE CA SE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U /S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 61,76,377/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2009 DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASS ESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS:- 1.1 THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 3,34,336/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. 1.2 THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE OVERALL FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND SHOULD HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 33 ,34,336/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE I.T . ACT, 1961. 2.1 THE CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING TH E FACTS AND LEGAL SUBMISSIONS AND IN THE PROCESS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,42,041/- ON THE PRETEXT OF REJECTION OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 80JJA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. GROUND NO. 1.1 AND 1.2 ARE IN CONNECTION WITH AD DITION MADE U/S. 68 AND INTERCONNECTED AND BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE CONSIDE RED TOGETHER. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O. N OTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 33,34,33 6/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM OM TEXTILES AND ELEGA NT DIAMOND COMPANY. TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION A ND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS, NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 133(6) WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AND THEY WERE ALSO ASKED TO CONFIRM THE TRANSACTION BY PRODUCING THE COPY OF CONTRA ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMEN T, RETURN OF INCOME, PROOF OF IDENTITY ETC. ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 3 5. IN THE CASE OF OM TEXTILES, A.O. NOTICED THAT THE B ANK ACCOUNT FURNISHED PERTAINED TO PERIOD 1.04.2006 TO 23.05.2006 AND THE SAME WAS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PERIOD OF SCRUTINY. HE ALSO OBSER VED THAT IN THE STATEMENT THAT THERE WERE SOME ENTRIES OF CASH AMOU NTING TO RS. ONE LAC BUT AS THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD WAS NOT PROV IDED OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, A.O. WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE PERSON ADVANCING THE FUND LEFT UNPROVED. WITH RESPECT TO E LEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY, A.O. NOTED THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED FRO M ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPA NY TILL THE DATE OF FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION STATEMENT, ACKNO WLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IT HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED DIRECTLY FROM ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY . THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE A.O . FOR THE REASON THAT (I) NONE OF THE DOCUMENTS WERE ORIGINAL AND WERE ME RELY PHOTO COPIES BEARING NO DATE OF ISSUE/PREPARATION. (II) THE SIGN ATURE ON THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT AND ON THE COPY OF ACKNOWLE DGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI RIKHAB CHAND JAIN DID NOT TALLY. (III) THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN OF INCOME DID NOT EST ABLISH ANY RELATION BETWEEN SHRI RIKHAB CHAND JAIN AND ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY, IN WHOSE NAME THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED. (IV) THE RETURN OF INCOME OF ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY WAS FILED AT GANDHIDHAM DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF MUMBAI. (V) TH E INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ONLY RS. 1,30,028/- WHICH ACCORDING TO A.O. CREATES A DOUBT ABOUT THE CAPACITY TO LOAN RS. 30 L ACS. (VI) THE BANK STATEMENT OF ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY DID NOT CARRY THE NAME AND THE ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 4 BRANCH OF THE BANK IN WHICH THE ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAI NED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE A.O. CONSIDERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDE RED THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BOTH THE PARTIES AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 33,34,336/-. AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A), CI T(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. THE AP PELLANTS MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT WHEN THE PAYMENTS ARE ROUTED THROUGH BANKS THE GENU INENESS OF TRANSACTION IS PROVED. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED THE BANK STATEMENT OF M/S ELEGANT DIAMOND CO. ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEM ENT OF THE RETURN FILED BY THE SAID PARTY. THE BANK STATEMENT SO ATTACHED DOES NO T BEAR THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THAT BANK ACCOUNT BELONG. FURTH ER THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT OF THE SAID PARTY BEARS THE SIGNATURE WHI CH DIFFERS FROM THE SIGNATURE OF THE SAID PARTY ON THE RETURN FILED BY HIM. THE APPELLAN T DID NOT FILE ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT LIKE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SAID PARTY AFFIRMI NG THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE CONFIRMATION AND ON THE RETURN OF INCOME ARE OF THE SAME PERSON. MERELY THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ROUTED FROM BANK IS NOT SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE. THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TOO PLAY VERY IMPORTANT ROLE. HERE THE DOC UMENTS ATTACHED IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT'S CLAIM ARE AGAINST HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS CORRECT. AS REGAR D LOAN RECEIVED FROM M/S OM TEXTILES THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMATION AND A CKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF YEAR NOT RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD, I DISAGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR DOUBTING THE SAME JUST BECAUSE SUBJECT DEPOSITOR HAS BY MISTAKE PROVI DED THE BANK STATEMENT FOR SUBSEQUENT PERIOD. THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUPPORT DID NOT PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION EVEN BEFORE ME. WITH OUT VERIFYING THE ENTRIES IN APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT WITH THAT OF THE DEPOSITOR I AM NOT IS POSITION TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THEREFORE, ADDITION AS UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT FROM M/S OM TEXTILE MADE BY THE AO STANDS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.33,34,336/- OF UNSECURED LOANS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT IS REJECTED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, WITH RESPECT TO ELEGANT DIAMOND COMP ANY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS A PROPRIETORY CONCERN OF SHR I JAIN. ASSESSEE PLACED ON PAPER BOOK, THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM ELEGAN T DIAMOND ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 5 COMPANY WHICH CONTAINED IN PAN NUMBER AND ADDRESS. HE ALSO PLACED AT PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE CONFIRMATION OF B ALANCE AS ON 31.03.2006 AND POINTED TO THE FACT THAT IT CONTAINS THE TELEPHONE NUMBER OF ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY AND FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEDUCTED TDS. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD, T HE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI JAIN FOR A.Y. 06-07 AT PAGE 74OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 30 LACS BY CHEQUE. WITH RESPECT TO OM TEXTILE, HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AT PAGE 79 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO PLAC ED ON RECORD AT PAGE 80, THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI JAYSUKHBHA I LATHIA. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGE D THE INITIAL ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION WAS CAL LED FOR. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR OVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND HE POINTED TO THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. AND CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN FROM TWO PARTIES NAMELY ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY AND OM TEXTILE. WITH RESPECT TO ELEGANT DIAMOND COMPANY, ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON REC ORD THE COPY OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS WHICH CONTAINS THE TELEPHO NE NUMBER OF THE CREDITOR. THE LD. A.R. HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD T HE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THE BANK BOOK OF ELEGANT DIAMOND. WE AL SO FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THESE MATERIALS BUT NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A.O. HE HA S SIMPLY REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS LIS TED IN HIS ORDER. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, WITH RESP ECT TO ELEGANT DIAMOND ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 6 COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED THE INITI AL ONUS CAST UPON IT AND THUS NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED ON THAT COUNT. 8. WITH RESPECT TO OM TEXTILE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS ALSO FILED THE COPY OF HIS PASS BOOK. HOWEVER, NO COPY OF THE CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE U S. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS STAND BEFORE THE A.O. WE THEREFORE REMIT THE MA TTER WITH RESPECT TO OM TEXTILES TO THE FILE OF A.O. AND DIRECT HIM TO V ERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSU E IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO REJECTION OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 28,42,041/- UNDER SECTION 80JJA. 9. A.O. NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 28,42,041 UNDER 80JJA. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO CONFIRM THAT IT HAS FULFILLED THE CONDITION LAID DO WN IN THE SECTION FOR CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION. A.O. ALSO NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE BILLS/ INVOICES FOR SALE OF VERMIN COMPOST WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME O F SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA. A.O. ISSUED LETTER U/S. 133(6) TO THE PART Y FOR CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTION BUT THE LETTER WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. THEREAFTER A.O. ISSUED COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 131(1)(D) TO ITO, AMRELI A SSIGNING INQUIRY FOR CONFIRMATION OF TRANSACTION WITH SHRI NARSIBHAI SAV ALIA. A.O. NOTED THAT ITO, AMRELI VIDE LETTER DATED 22.12.2008 HAS REPORT ED THAT SHRI NARSIBHAI ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 7 SAVALIA HAD IN HIS STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORDED ON OATH HAD SHOWN HIS IGNORANCE ABOUT ANY TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE F IRM. THE ASSESSEE WAS THEREAFTER ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE MISMATCH IN THE INFORMATION, BUT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN THE ABSENCE OF SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, ASSESSEE DISALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER 80JJA. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. EXCEPT FROM THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION CON SISTS OF THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS AS 2005 I DISAGREE WITH ALL THE OTHER A RGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT. BUT MERELY THE DATE OF COMMENCEMENT OF BUSINESS IN THE SAID REPORT DOES NOT PROVE THAT THE BUSINESS WAS ACTUALLY COMMENCED IN THE YEAR 200 5. FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME IT COULD BE SEEN THAT THE APPEL LANT'S CLAIM THAT STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI NARSIBHAI IS NOT CORRECT, IS ABSOLUTELY NOT AC CEPTABLE. THE SIGNATURES ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED AND THAT ON THE DELIVERY CHALLAN S PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DO NOT MATCH. FURTHER THE TEST REPORTS OF M/S POLLUCON LABORATORIES PVT. LTD SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT APPEARS TO BE FABRICATED AS THERE IS PRINTING AS WELL AS SIGNATURE DIFFERENCE IN ALL THE FOUR TEST REPORTS. THE CONDIT ION FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80JJA IS, 'A DEDUCTION OF AN AMOUNT EQUAL T O THE WHOLE OF SUCH PROFITS AND GAIN FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YE ARS BEGINNING WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH BU SINESS COMMENCES'. IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFOR E ME IT IS NOT PROVED THAT THE BUSINESS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN COMMENCED DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE DECISION OF THE AO AND HENCE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,42,041/- MADE BY THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80JJA. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS N OW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTE D THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA WAS RECORDED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-E XAMINE HIM. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED AN O PPORTUNITY TO CROSS- EXAMINE. SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA AND THEREFORE THE M ATTER MAY BE REMITTED ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 8 TO THE FILE OF A.O. WITH NECESSARY DIRECTIONS. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 131(1)(D) OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED TO ITO, AMRELI WHO WAS ASSIGNED TO MAKE ENQUIRY WITH S HRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF ALLEGED SALE BY WI TH THE ASSESSEE. A.O. IN HIS ORDER HAS NOTED THAT ITO, AMRELI VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2008 HAS REPORTED ABOUT IGNORANCE OF ANY TRANSACTION BY SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE A.O. HAS RELIED ON THE AFORESAID STATEMENT TO DENY DEDUCTION. A.O. HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE MAJOR ITY OF SALES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHR I NARSIBHAI SAVALIA. 12. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EASTERN COMMERCIAL ENTERPRIS ES (1994) 210 ITR 103 (CAL) HON. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDE R:- AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE A WITNESS ADVERSE TO THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDESPENSIBLE RIGHT AND THE OPPORTUNITY OF SU CH CROSS EXAMINATION IS ONE OF THE CORNER STONES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT HAS FURTHE R HELD THAT IT IS TRITE LAW THAT CROSS EXAMINATION IS THE SINE QUA NON OF DUE PROCES S OF TAKING EVIDENCE AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST A PARTY UNLE SS THE PARTY IS PUT ON NOTICE OF THE CASE MADE OUT AGAINST HIM. HE MUST BE SUPPL IED THE CONTACTS OF ALL SUCH EVIDENCE, BOTH ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY, SO THAT HE CAN PREPARE TO MEET THE CASE AGAINST HIM. THIS NECESSARILY ALSO POSTULATES THAT HE SHOULD CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESS HOSTILE TO HIM. 13. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS, AND TO MEET THE END S OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA. WE THEREFORE REMIT THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF A.O. AND DIRECT HIM TO ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EX AMINE OF SHRI NARSIBHAI SAVALIA TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDE RING THE SUBMISSIONS ITA NO 2399/ AHD/2009 . A.Y. 2006- 07 9 OF ASSESSEE DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 -10 - 2013. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD