8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT

96 ITR 97High Court1974#2358 most cited

What is 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT authority for?

The elementary principle of natural justice requires that an assessee must have knowledge of all material intended to be used against them in assessment proceedings, along with a reasonable opportunity to meet or rebut such material, including the right to cross-examine witnesses.

49

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT · 96 ITR 97 · natural justice · audi alteram partem · opportunity to be heard · right to cross-examine · material used against assessee · violation of natural justice · assessment proceedings · Section 142(3) · Section 133(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 153CSection 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 1961Section 271AABSection 69Section 133(6)

Issues it is cited on

arbitrary and capricioussection 132(1)(a)section 142(3)section 106third party informationsection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 114section 158bdmliaudi alteram partemretracted statement

Judgments citing 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad 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 250

…ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of Prateek Kothari in ITA No.\n159/JP/16 dated 16.12.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13 in support of the contentions\nraised above. As held in State of Punjab Vs Bhagat Ram AIR 1974 SC 2335; Gargi Din\nJwala Prasad Vs CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (ALL). The learned AO violated the rule of audi\nalteram partem, which means that no one shall be condemned unheard, corollary of which is\nthat he should be given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met, there are other rules\nof common law to the same effect. Reliance is placed on Peerless General Finance &\nInvestment Co. Ltd Vs DC…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(4), BENGALURU vs. SRI ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHIKHANA TRUST, MANDYA

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1096/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2011-12 Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust, Sri Adichunchanagiri Kshetra, Bellur Hobli, Mysore Tumkur Road, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya. 571 811. PAN: AAATS 3584P Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1207/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru. Vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust, Sri Adichunch…

M/S. SRI . ADICHUNCHANAGIRI SHILKSHANA TRUST,MANDYA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1096/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2011-12 Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust, Sri Adichunchanagiri Kshetra, Bellur Hobli, Mysore Tumkur Road, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya. 571 811. PAN: AAATS 3584P APPELLANT Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru. RESPONDENT ITA Nos.1207/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2011-12 The Deputy Commissioner of Income, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru. Vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikshana Trust, Sri Adichunchana…

DCIT (CC)- 2(3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2303/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Aakash Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1718/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC) 2(3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1717/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC) -2(3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1715/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC)-2(3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1709/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC) - 2 (3), MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1705/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

DCIT (CC) - 2(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. CLASSIC MARBLE CO. PVT. LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1701/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Mr. Neelkanth Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)

…nished to the appellant by the A.O. No opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses of the A.O. was given to the appellant company in spite of request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwalaprasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) held that the elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have 'knowledge of the material that is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it. The proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Cental Excise (Supra)…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner of Shree Laxmi Industrial Corporation has also been denied…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…heard and a right to question the correctness or the 24 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni relevancy of materials on the basis of which the ITO proposes to make the judgment assessment. 22. Gargi Din jwala Prasad Vs CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All.) Principles of natural justice are applicable – The principles of natural justice are applicable to assessment proceedings. The elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of material which is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it - 23. M/s Munnalal murlidhar Vs CIT 79 ITR 540 (A…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…ry information or by the officer refusing to consider certain things on the specious plea that there was lack of time or resources, the opportunity provided by the show cause notices become meaningless opportunities. (xii) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All.). Principles of natural justice are applicable - The principles of natural justice are applicable to assessment proceedings. The elementary principle of natural justice is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material which is going to be used against him so that he may be able to meet it – (xiii) Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee V Sup…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 22/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowanc…

ITO, WARD-2(3)(7), SURAT vs. ANSHUMAN RAMDAYALJI KUMAWAT, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 21/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowanc…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 16/SRT/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowanc…

ITO, WARD 2(3)(8), SURAT vs. MUKESH MAHAVIRPRASAD SEN, SURAT

In the result the ground No

ITA 15/SRT/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Hon'Ble & Dr. A. L. Saini, Hon'Ble Accountnat Member (Physical Court Hearing) Sl.

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Vijayvargiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT(DR) with Shri Vinod Kumar
Section 132(4)Section 144

…713 — International Forest v/s CIT 101 ITR 721 ITO v/s Ponkunnam 102 ITR 336 Narayan v/s CIT 20 ITR 287 ; in ITR 361; Nagulokonda v/s CIT 31 ITR 781; Thomakutty v/s CIT 34 ITR 501 Koyanmankutty v/s ITO 58 ITR 871 ; Radheylal v/s CIT 4 ITC 454 ; Gargi v/s CIT 96 ITR 97; Hirji v/s CIT 105 ITR 286 (sec 271). However, quashing reopening and assessment on this ground would mean that the appellant is given undue benefit of mistakes by an individual officer. This is neither fair nor equitable for the revenue. Hence, this ground is not allowed. 13. On merits, Ld. CIT(A) held as follows: “7.2 Ground regarding disallowanc…

Showing 1–20 of 49 · Page 1 of 3

8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT (96 ITR 97) — Cited in 49 Judgments | BharatTax