KALPAKA ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) BY this application made under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1960, the assessee requires us to direct the Tribunal to refer the following questions for the opinion of this Court:

(3.) WE have carefully gone through the assessment order. In paragraph 34 of the said order, it is clearly stated that vide letter dt. 21st March, 1988, the assessee was informed in detail about the statement of Sivaswamy being recorded, which was intended to be relied on against it. The assessee though replied the said letter by letter dt. 25th March, 1988, no request was made by it to the AO to produce Sivaswamy for cross-examination. On these facts, it would not be open to the assessee to contend that the assessment was vitiated because an opportunity to cross-examine Sivaswamy was not given. When the AO duly informed the assessee about the statement of Sivaswamy, it was for the assessee to request the AO to produce Sivaswamy for cross- examination. But no such request was made by the assessee.