Dismissing the \u00a0appeal of the revenue the Court held that \u00a0the 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. \u00a0Order 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)<\/p>\n
Dismissing the \u00a0appeal of the revenue the Court held that \u00a0the 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. \u00a0Order 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)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 69C : unexplained expenditure-Bogus hawala purchases-Third party statement-Opportunity of cross examination was not provided-Payments were through banking channels by way of letter of credit-Order of Tribunal deleting the addition was affirmed-No question of law. [S. 260A] <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22048","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-5JC","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22048","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22048"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22048\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22049,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22048\/revisions\/22049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22048"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22048"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22048"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}