SRI SUMERMAL K JAIN,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(2)(5), BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal followed a previous ITAT order and a Karnataka High Court judgment, restoring the matter to the AO for a fresh decision. This was based on the principle that the assessee should be provided with the statement details and a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 11,63,868/- made based on a statement from Mr. Mukesh Choksi. The assessee also raised a grievance regarding interest charged under sections 234A to 234C.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition made based on an undisclosed statement without providing a copy to the assessee and without granting a proper opportunity of being heard is valid.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘SMC-C’, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of CIT (A) – 2, Bangalore dated 13.04.2017 for A. Y. 2010 – 11.
The assessee has raised as many as 8 grounds but effective grievance on merit is only one about addition of Rs. 11,63,868/- on the basis of Statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi and the next grievance is about interest charged u/s 234A to 234C.
Learned AR of the assessee submitted a copy of the tribunal order rendered in the case of Shri Mukesh Kumar Solanki vs. ITO in dated 17.03.2017 and pointed out that in that case also, similar addition was made based on the same statement of Mr. Mukesh Choksi and the tribunal restored back the matter to AO for a fresh decision in the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari in Writ Petition No. 39390/2014 dated 02.02.2015 wherein it was held that the details/copy of the statement based on which the assessment order was passed should be provided to the assessee and matter be then decided afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Learned DR of the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below.
I have considered the rival submissions. I respectfully follow the tribunal order and the cited judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) and restore the matter back to AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in that case as per Para 8 of that judgment. Hence, no further adjudication is called for at the present stage.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 234A
- Vikas Ashokkumar Masand, Ahmedabad vs The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 3130/AHD/2026[A.Y. 2017-18]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026
- Sarvjeet Singh Through Legal Heir Manjit… vs ITO Ward 1(1), AlwarITA 355/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 2128/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- Cornerstone Ondemand International Limited… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 4558/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gagan Bihari Rout@Gagan Rout vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026