PARSHWA PRINT PACK PVT. LTD.,,WADHWAN vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMR. INCOME TAX, SURENDRANAGAR CIRCLE,, SURENDRANAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO's additions were based on statements recorded without providing the assessee an opportunity for cross-examination, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal also noted issues with the timeliness of the assessment for one year and the lack of clarity on the reopening of assessment for another.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed commission expenses and unsecured loans, but the Assessing Officer (AO) treated them as bogus. The AO disallowed these expenses and additions based on statements from commission agents and loan creditors recorded behind the assessee's back. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A).
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the AO based on ex-parte statements without providing cross-examination are valid. Whether the assessment proceedings were conducted within the prescribed time limits and if the reopening of assessment was justified.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(3),Section 37(1),Section 68,Section 36(1)(iii),Section 131(1),Section 133(6),Section 147,Section 148,Section 153
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT962 citing125 ITR 713 · 1980 · SC
- Dhanna Ram Garg v. ITO8 citing15 Taxmann.com 104 · 2011 · HC
- Rajat Bansal v. CiT3 citing200 Taxmann 72 · 2011 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आदेश आदेश आदेश
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The captioned three appeals have been filed at the instance of the assessee against the sepa
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- Sharad Ashok Agarwal vs. State Of Maharashtra Through G.P. And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026