Dismissing the  appeal of the revenue the Court held that  the assessment order could not have been passed by the Assessing Officer without granting an opportunity to respondent to defend his position or cross-examine the two persons on whose affidavits, the Assessing Officer had relied upon to conclude that respondent had made certain purchases from those persons identified as Hawala Traders. The Assessing Officer also should have investigated further or should have dealt with in his assessment order as to why he was not accepting the explanation of respondent that he had paid in excess of Rs.25,62,560/- through the Bank L.C. to one of the parties allegedly doing business of issuing bogus bills.  Order of Tribunal is affirmed . (ITA No. 971 of 2017 dt. 28-9-2021) (AY. 2010-11) (Arising ITA No. 7287/M/2014 dt.7-10-2016)

Dismissing the  appeal of the revenue the Court held that  the assessment order could not have been passed by the Assessing Officer without granting an opportunity to respondent to defend his position or cross-examine the two persons on whose affidavits, the Assessing Officer had relied upon to conclude that respondent had made certain purchases from those persons identified as Hawala Traders. The Assessing Officer also should have investigated further or should have dealt with in his assessment order as to why he was not accepting the explanation of respondent that he had paid in excess of Rs.25,62,560/- through the Bank L.C. to one of the parties allegedly doing business of issuing bogus bills.  Order of Tribunal is affirmed . (ITA No. 971 of 2017 dt. 28-9-2021) (AY. 2010-11) (Arising ITA No. 7287/M/2014 dt.7-10-2016)