Bhavesh Arunkumar Shah, Mumbai vs. Asstt. CIT -19(1), Mumbai
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed
ITA 720/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalebhavesh Arunkumar Vs. Acit – 19(1) Shah Matru Mandir G-7, Sarvodaya Nagar, Grant Road, Tardeo, 1St Panjrapole Lane, Cp Mumbai-400007 Tank, Mumbai – 400004 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Andps5035M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.Ar Respondent By : Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23.03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.
For Appellant: Mr.Suchek Anchaliya.ARFor Respondent: Mr.C.T. Mathews. Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)
…deduction Assessing Officer. We note that not providing the opportunity of crossexamination is against the principle of natural justice and for that we rely of-the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prern Chand Ltd. [2007] 295 ITR 105, 108 (del). We note that on identical facts, the similar proposition was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of Kolkata in the case of Rajda Polymers, ITA No.333/Kol/2017,for Assessment Year 2013-14 wherein it was held as follows: "10. ....Thus we note from the entire facts and circumstances, that the AO got swayed away with the statement recorded on…
