I. T. A. No. 411 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : I. T. A. No. 411 of 2008 Date of Decision : November 28, 2008. Sunil Bhaseen, Prop., M/s Jandiala Mill Store, Village Jandiala, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar .... Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax – 2, Jalandhar .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Ravish Sood, Advocate for the appellant. * * * ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) : 1. The Assessee has preferred this appeal under Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar Bench, Amritsar passed in ITA No.371(ASR)/2006 for the Assessment Year 2000-2001, served upon the appellant as on 02.02.2008, proposing to raise following substantial questions of law :- “1. Whether the Tribunal had erred in law by failing to appreciate that the A.O. in light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case I. T. A. No. 411 of 2008 2 of : GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) was under a `statutory obligation' to dispose of the `Objections' filed by the assessee challenging the initiation of the reassessment proceedings, by way of a `separate' and an `independent' order, before proceeding with and framing assessment in the hands of the assessee ?” “2. Whether the Tribunal had gravely erred in law and acted in gross violation of the `Principles of Natural justice' by relying on the statement of one Sh. Rakesh Bajaj which was recorded at the back of the assessee, and therein drawing adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee without allowing `cross examination' of the said person, despite specific requests of the assessee for the same ?” 2. The Assessee received gift of Rs.5 lacs from one Suresh Bajaj. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment on receiving information that in fact, the gift relied upon by the Assessee represented his income. The assessment was made accordingly. The said view was affirmed by the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal. The Tribunal, inter alia, observed as under :- “.....However, the question is whether in the absence of such statement of Shri Rakesh Bajaj, the conclusion drawn by the AO could be held to be justified. In this case the assessee has miserably failed to prove the occasion of such gift and that the assessee had close relations with the donor. Thus, even if we ignore the statement of Sh. Rakesh Bajaj, the evidence furnished by the I. T. A. No. 411 of 2008 3 assessee does not establish the credit worthiness of the creditor and genuineness of the transaction. The results of enquiries were duly confronted to the assessee. But the assessee made no efforts to rebut the evidence collected by way of filing a fresh evidence from Sh. Suresh Bajaj and to prove the genuineness of the transaction. Shri Suresh Bajaj was also not produced before the AO. In fact, the AO has adversely commented upon the evidence furnished by the assessee. Though the assessee has filed a paper book, yet the copies of certificate of the Notary and an affidavit are conveniently omitted from the paper book filed before the Tribunal. Thus, independent of the statement of Shri Rakesh Bajaj, the addition is justified and warranted.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the Assessee and perused the record. 4. Only contention raised by learned counsel for the Assessee is that Rakesh Bajaj, whose statement was taken into account for reopening the assessment was not allowed to be cross-examined. Learned counsel for the Assessee also submits that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer and others, (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC), the department was under obligation to dispose of objections of the assessee to the initiation of proceedings, by way of separate and independent order. 5. We are unable to accept that there is any rigid rule that even if there is adequate material justifying re-assessment and no prejudice is caused to the assessee, the same should be set aside on a technicality. The I. T. A. No. 411 of 2008 4 Tribunal held that transaction of gift was not genuine and the assessee failed to produce Suresh Bajaj. On probabilities, the transaction of gift was held not to be genuine. 6. The findings of the authorities are not shown, in any manner, to be perverse. 7. In view of above, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. 8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE November 28, 2008 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE