This is also the case with regard to statements made in Mr. Barak's affidavit in relation to guarantees under the Sale of Apartments Law, when he argued that such guarantees are given "only by a person who sells a right in the land" (see paragraph 35 of his affidavit).
- When Mr. Barak was confronted in his cross-examination with the opinion of the accounting expert submitted on behalf of the appellant, CPA Shmuel Marco (see page 162, lines 18-23, page 163 in its entirety, page 164 in its entirety, and page 165, lines 1-8), he had no satisfactory answers to the questions addressed to him, and in the end, when he was asked to say what was the basis for the arguments raised by him, his answer was summarized by the fact that he was basing his answers "From the height of my years of experience" (line 8 on page 165 of the transcript of November 2, 2022).
Even when Mr. Barak was confronted in his cross-examination with instructions The Sale Law (Apartments) And with the definition of "seller" in the said law, which also includes a person who sells an apartment that he built on another person's land (see page 165, lines 9-23, page 166, lines 1-18), evasive answers were given by him.
- Throughout his cross-examination, Mr. Barak evaded providing substantive answers to the questions asked by the appellant's counsel. Thus, for example, when he was asked to confirm that the respondent was also correcting assessments on the grounds of a legal error, and only after the committee demanded an answer from him, he argued that it was a small amount."Not even one hand" (See transcript 2 November 2022, page 161, lines 16-23 and page 162, lines 1-12).
Beyond the fact that the additional evidence submitted as part of the affidavit of Ms. Baruch of Shmuel Baruch, casts doubt on this version of Mr. Barak, the Appeals Committee in question, due to the number of appeals heard before it, is well aware of the scope of the assessment amendments carried out, and frequently, by respondent 1, using the ground of section 85(a)(3) of the Law, and this is not a small amount at all. Certainly not the amount of "one hand".
- This conduct of Mr. Barak did not allow real weight to be given to his testimony, especially since as stated above – the respondent did not explain at all what Mr. Barak's connection was with regard to the decision on the amendment requests and the issue of the "Buyer's Price" tenders, since he was not the one who discussed the requests The aforementioned He did not decide on them.
I will emphasize that it is not enough for an affidavit to be submitted on behalf of the respondent and to be brought to testify by some witness from his office, but it is required that it be the official in the respondent's offices who examined and held a hearing on the motions to amend the assessment, exercised his discretion, on the basis of arguments and documents that were before his eyes, and decided on the request for amendment – a decision that is at the basis of the appeals in this case and which the appeals committee is required to examine.