How many judgments cite GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT?

119 judgments on BharatTax cite GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT (65 ITD 380), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 148, Section 147, Section 68, Section 132, Section 142(1), Section 143(3).

GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

65 ITD 380Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1998#892 most cited

What is GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

Formal cross-examination of witnesses who make adverse reports is not an invariable requirement of natural justice (audi alteram partem) in income tax proceedings. Assessees must have a fair opportunity to meet adverse evidence, but this does not mandate formal cross-examination.

119

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

GTC Industries Ltd v ACIT · 65 ITD 380 · ITAT Mumbai 1998 · natural justice principles · audi alteram partem · cross-examination of witnesses · adverse evidence · opportunity to rebut · Section 147 · Section 148 · tax assessment procedure

Also reported as

80 Taxmann.com 284

Sections most often in play

Section 148 Section 147 Section 68 Section 132 Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 10(38)Section 1961

Issues it is cited on

audi alteram partem bogus long term capital gain preponderance of probability third party information bogus ltcg circular trading price rigging penny stock violation of natural justice section 10(38)long term capital gains entry operator

Judgments citing GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3315/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 Bharat Devshi Dagha, Ito, Ward 3(1), 3/13, Geet Govind Chs. Rani Mansion Manpada Road, Vs. Maharashtra-421301. Dombivli East-421 201. Pan No. Aarpd 9399 Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

…ome thus the word 'evidence' in the income-tax proceedings has to tax proceedings has to be understood in the generic sense." be understood in the generic sense." Bharat Devshi Dagha ITA Nos. 3315 & 3314/M/2023 16.2 In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v ACIT 65 ITD 380, ITAT Mumbai Bench has relied Mumbai Bench has relied upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in upon the judgment of Calcutta High Court in the case of Kisanlal Agarwalla v. Collector of Land Customs AIR 1967 the case of Kisanlal…

Bharat De vs. Hi Dagha, Thanevs.ITO Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3314/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Surendra Kumar Meena, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…lacks force. The assessee has not brought out any facts which are different from the findings narrated in the show cause notice dated 16.12.2016. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s. Golden Tobacco Ltd. V/s CIT(65 ITD 380) wherein it had held as under: "we have taken a view that adverse evidence and material, relied upon in the order, to reach the finality should be disclosed to the assessee. But this rule is not applicable where the material or evidence used is of collateral nature. We have also taken a view that right to cross-examine the witness, who made advers…

Naz Shazia, Moradabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Moradabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1831/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganeshnaz Shazia, Vs. Ito, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad Pan: Bbwps217R Assessee By : Shri V. K. Tulsian, Ca Revenue By: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Tulsian, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69A

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Naz Shazia, Vs. ITO, Anwar House, Ground Ward-1(1), Floor, Pandit Nagla Mini Moradabad Bye Pass Road, Moradabad PAN: BBWPS217R Assessee by : Shri V. K. Tulsian, CA Revenue by: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/01/2024 Date of pronouncement 18/01/2024 O R D E R 1. The appeal in ITA No. 1831/Del/2023 arises out of the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. CIT(A)‟, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-14/1052537146(1) dated 02.05.2023 against the…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 417/AHD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 417/Ahd/2022 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2018-2019 Income Tax Officer, M/S Aashna Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. 301, Satkar Complex, Ahmedabad. Off C.G Road, Near Lal Bunglow, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aabca9995Q

For Appellant: Shri S.N Soparkar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT.D.R

Section 132(4)Section 68

…s there was sufficient collateral evidence against the assessee that the assessee had received bogus loans. The learned DR in support of his contentions has relied on the judgements discussed below: 1. Swati Bajaj 139 taxmann.com 352 2. GTC Industries Limited 65 ITD 380 3. NRA Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd. 103 taxmann.com 48 4. Sadiq Sheikh 122 taxmann.com 39 5. Kottex Industries (P.) Ltd 129 taxmann.com 151 A.Y. 2018-19 5 7.1 The DR before us reiterated the finding of the AO contained in the assessment order. 8. On the other hand, the learned AR before us filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 292 and supported t…

The Hamlet, Bangalore vs. The Income-Tax Officer-Ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 70/BANG/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. The Hamlet, No. 11, Kemwell House, The Income Tax Tumkur Road, Officer, Yeshwanthpur, Ward – 6(2)(4), Bangalore – 560 022. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaaft6690D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H.N. Kincha, Ca : Shri D.K. Mishra, Cit - Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 24-08-2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-11-2023 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of The Order Dated 27.12.2022 Passed By The Nfac, Delhi For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Passing The Appellate Order In The Manner Passed. The Appellate Order As Passed Is Bad In Law & Is Liable To Be Quashed. 2. In Any Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Should Have Quashed, The Order Passed By Assessing Officer Or Atleast Should Have Deleted The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Kincha, CA

Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 68

…roduce the witnesses whose statements were recorded and used against the Appellant. The contention of the Appellant is not acceptable in view of following judgments:- i. The Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs ACIT, ITAT, Mumbai, [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM) held that "Where statements of witnesses were only secondary Page 11 of 52 M/s. The Hamlet, Bangalore and of subordinate material used to buttress main matter connected with amount of additions, it had to be held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice if witnesses were not allowed to be cross-examined by assessee". 7.17 I…

Nanda Sumermal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2) (4), Mumbai

ITA 2526/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…failed to provide the same, the Assessing Officer stated that the Appellant had failed to ask for cross- examination during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Vs. Asst. CIT: 65 ITD 380 (Bom) to contend that it was not necessary to provide opportunity of cross examination to the assessee in all cases. 4.5. The Appellant was confronted with the Remand Report. In reply, the Appellant submitted that the day to day operations of the proprietorship concern were managed by the husband of the Appellant and that all the documents were f…

Hazari Lal Kesari Chand, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-48(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8561/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148

…nation: this was made at the fag end... the court finds no justification to reject the statements which merely explain the documents seized; the assessee could well have given a full explanation instead of seeking rejection of documents. GTC Inds Ltd Vs ACIT 65 ITD 380 (Bom). The ITAT Mumbai has held that: The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination. FormaI cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidence, and is the creation of court. It is a part of legal and statutory justice and not a part of natural justice., therefore, it cannot be la…

Harish Sharma HUF, B-1, Patodiya Marg, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 318/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…eds to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of LTCG. In this connection reference can be made to the judgment of Special Bench of Mumbai, ITAT in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1 where in Para 46, it is observed as under:- 46. In situations like this case, one may fall into realm of ‘preponderance of probability’ where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here in this case the materia…

DCIT, CC - 5(3), Mumbai vs. Alag Nirman Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6684/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Viraj MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69Section 69A

…oned that additions are made only on the basis of statement of Mr. Pravin Jam. On this issue, reliance is placed on judgment of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai bench, in 11 ITA.NO. 6684/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Alag Nirman Pvt. Ltd., GTC Industries Ltd Vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380, wherein it was held that where statement of witnesses were only secondary and of sub- ordinate material used to buttress main matter connected with amount of additions, it had to be held that there was no denial of principles of natural justice, if witness were not allowed to be cross- examined by assessee. (Para 105 of judgment.) The above argum…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of Long Term Capital Gain. The reliance is also placed upon the decision of ITAT Mumbai Special Bench in case of GTC Industries Vs. ACIT 164 ITD 1. These principals enunciated by the Apex Court/High Courts have been followed by various Tribunals. In this regard the notable cases are DN Kamani (HUF) v. Dy. CIT [1999] 70 ITD 77 (Pat.) (TM), Pooja Bhatt v. Asstt. CIT [2000] 73 ITD 205 (Mum.) and Aishwarya K. Rai v. Dy. CIT [2007] 104 ITD 166 (Mum.) (TM). Thus it is contended that in case of t…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…o the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor financial but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. 6.2.24 In GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax (1998] 65 ITD 380 (BOM), it was held as under: 105. In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram parten. The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross-examination. Formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by t…

Bharat Jha-HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-37(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6834/DEL/2019[2013+-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 68

…, 1997. This court finds no justification to reject the statements, which merely explain the documents seized; the assessee could well have given a full explanation instead of seeking rejection of the documents. 4.7 In the case of GTC Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 65 ITD 380 Hon'ble ITAT Bombay has held that the principles of natural justice do not require formal cross- examination. Formal cross-examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed by the rules of evidences, and is the creation of Court. It is part of legal and statutory justice, and not a part of natural justice, therefore, it cannot be laid do…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…the administrative realities and oilier factors of a given case, can he exasperating. We can neither be financial nor financial but should he flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. 4.15. in GTC Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax [1998] 65 ITD 380 (BQM), it was held as under: "105. In our opinion right to cross-examine the witness who made adverse report, is not an invariable attribute of the requirement of the dictum, 'audi alteram partern The principles of natural justice do not require formal cross- examination. Formal cross- examination is a part of procedural justice. It is governed b…

Asst CIT CC 1 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Key Tech, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7456/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2008-09

Section 115Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147

…s made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [37 ITR 288 (SC)]. In this context, further reference is made to judgment of Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. V. ACIT [164 ITD 1 (Mum)(SB), wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal observed as under: “Ultimately the entire case of revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true but needs to be corroborated b…

ACIT 17 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Rashmi Bearing Co, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 5732/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 5732/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-17(3) बिधम/ M/S. Rashmi Bearing Co. Room No.122, 1St Floor, 115, Room No.7, 2Nd Floor Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, G- Block Nagdevi Street, Mumbai- Bkc, Mumbai-400051. 400003. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaefr2683Q (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Nitesh Gandhi सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/04/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 02/07/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 17.06.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. "Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Justified In Restricting The Addition Made By The Ao To 12.5% Of Bogus Purchases As Against The Addition Made At 17.04% Of The Bogus Purchases, Ignoring That There Was No Compliance To The Notices Issued U/S 133(6) By Ao & The Assessee Was Also Unable To Prove The Genuineness Of The. Purchases Either, By Producing The Suppliers For Examination Or By Furnishing

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh GandhiFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

…also that the sole reliance on Sales Tax/VAT is not correct. In this regard, it is observed that the opportunity of cross examination may not be sacrosanct and fatal to the assessment as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in GTC INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. ACIT (1998)65 ITD 380/60 TTJ 308(BOM). In the present appeal, at the cost of repetition it is observed that AO did not base his decision solely on the Sales Tax/VAT and came to an independent conclusion after due consideration of a myriad of factors and on account of the inability of the appellant to discharge the burden of proof cast on it. 5.14 It is a well-establish…