102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT

89 ITR 6Supreme Court of India1973#21552 most cited
4

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 350,364 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69CSection 131

Issues it is cited on

onus of proofaudi alteram partemretracted statementaccommodation entryincome-tax officergenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)unexplained cash creditsection 10reassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesection 68

Judgments citing 102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…done, the principles of natural justice stand violated (KishinchandChellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); ITO (Addl) v Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker); International Forest Co. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K); STO v Uttareswari Rice Mills (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ag ITO (1972) 83 ITR 778 (Pat); CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC), HarmukhraiDulichand v CIT (1928) 3 ITC 198 (Cal.). This requirement of pre-communication to the Assessee did not find mention in the pre- 1961 Act, but courts had held on principles of equity, justice and good conscie…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ause We, thus, set aside the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal and allow this appeal.” 62. Also in Addl. ITO v. Ponkunnam Traders [1976] 102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K) ; STO v. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1973] 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Agrl ITO [1972] 83 ITR 778 (Pat.); CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC); Harmukhrai Dulichand v. CIT [1928] 3 ITC 198 (Cal.) 63. Thus it is well settled that the Assessing Officer has to confront the assessee with the material collected behind the back of the assessee, if he chooses to…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ause We, thus, set aside the impugned order as passed by the Tribunal and allow this appeal.” 62. Also in Addl. ITO v. Ponkunnam Traders [1976] 102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 (J&K) ; STO v. Uttareswari Rice Mills [1973] 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Agrl ITO [1972] 83 ITR 778 (Pat.); CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC); Harmukhrai Dulichand v. CIT [1928] 3 ITC 198 (Cal.) 63. Thus it is well settled that the Assessing Officer has to confront the assessee with the material collected behind the back of the assessee, if he chooses to…

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), Agra vs. Shanti Constructions, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Bajpai CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…used against assessee not shown to the assessee is inadmissible unless the opportunity to controvert has been given to the assessee.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sales Tax Officer, Ganjam, and Another Vs. Uttareswari Rice Mills reported in (1973) 89 ITR 6 has held that “if any officer is in possession of material which he proposes to use against the assessee, then the officer must before using the material bring it to the notice of the assessee and give him adequate opportunity to explain and answer the case on the basis of such material.” The Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the case of Inte…

102 ITR 366 (Ker.); International Forest Co. v. CIT (89 ITR 6) — Cited in 4 Judgments | BharatTax