DCIT Vs Malbros International Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Chandigarh)
ITAT Chandigarh held that addition based on statement is liable to be quashed as the statement was recorded from the back of the assessee and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Accordingly, appeal of revenue dismissed.
Facts- Revenue has preferred the present appeal mainly contesting that CIT (Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.6,67,08,792/- and Rs.2,93,25,267/- which were added on the ground that assessee has made bogus purchases from two concerns, namely M/s S.A.Agro International and M/s Ridhi Sidhi Impex which are controlled by one Shri Ashok Kumar Gupta.
Conclusion- Hon’ble Kerala High Court has held that whatever statement is recorded under Section 133A, during the course of survey, it has no independent evidentiary value. It is only a corroborative piece of evidence. If Section 133A is being perused, it does not empower the authorized officer to administer the oath.
Held that if the deponent was not put to cross-examination, then statement of such a witness cannot be used against the interest of any other person. In the present case, this statement was recorded from the back of the assessee and the assessee was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the deponent. Therefore, the statement is to be excluded from the evidence used against the assessee. If the statement is excluded, then nothing remains with the AO for making the addition.
