The Tribunal held that the order becomes null and void if based merely on the statement of a witness without allowing opportunity to cross-examine them. Relied on, Andaman Timber  Industries v. CCE  (2016) 38 GSTR 117 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)  Omar  Salay Mohamed  Sait v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC)   and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT  (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). The Tribunal also held that  the assessment could not have been reopened. In view of these specific facts, the action taken by the Assessing Officer of reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Act was not sustainable and was void ab initio being based on seized documents of other assessee and based on presumptions, assumptions and incorrect interpretation of law. (AY. 2006-07, 2007-08)