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

96 ITR 97High Court1974#2356 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 366,339 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

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…d may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as held by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Gargi Devi Jwala Prasad V/s CIT (1974 96 ITR 97) and Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384). 3.4 In view of admission made by Shri Anil Agarwal that the scrip of FFSL was being manipulated and keeping in view his role in LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit-providers who were the clients of M/s CSL for which mandatory physical verifications were never carried out, has to…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…d may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as held by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Gargi Devi Jwala Prasad V/s CIT (1974 96 ITR 97) and Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384). 3.4 In view of admission made by Shri Anil Agarwal that the scrip of FFSL was being manipulated and keeping in view his role in LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit-providers who were the clients of M/s CSL for which mandatory physical verifications were never carried out, has to…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…d may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as held by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Gargi Devi Jwala Prasad V/s CIT (1974 96 ITR 97) and Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384). 3.4 In view of admission made by Shri Anil Agarwal that the scrip of FFSL was being manipulated and keeping in view his role in LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit-providers who were the clients of M/s CSL for which mandatory physical verifications were never carried out, has to…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…d may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as held by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Gargi Devi Jwala Prasad V/s CIT (1974 96 ITR 97) and Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384). 3.4 In view of admission made by Shri Anil Agarwal that the scrip of FFSL was being manipulated and keeping in view his role in LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit-providers who were the clients of M/s CSL for which mandatory physical verifications were never carried out, has to…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…d may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as held by Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Gargi Devi Jwala Prasad V/s CIT (1974 96 ITR 97) and Delhi High Court in Dhingra Metal Works (328 ITR 384). 3.4 In view of admission made by Shri Anil Agarwal that the scrip of FFSL was being manipulated and keeping in view his role in LTCG scam as well as the role of certain exit-providers who were the clients of M/s CSL for which mandatory physical verifications were never carried out, has to…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jugal Kishore Garg(Derewala), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh jes’k lh-'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 34, 35, 36 & 37/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 to 2017-18 cuke The DCIT Shri Jugal Kishore Garg (Derewala) Vs. Central Circle - 1 27-A, Agrasen Colony, Jaipur Brahmpuri Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABBPG 4020 E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfj…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…DCIT 28 Tax World 57 (Jp) 102 27 ITO v. M.A. Chidambaram (mad) 63 ITD p. 203 102-103 28 Associated Stone Industries (Kotah) Ltd. v. DCIT (JP) (1999) 68 ITD 312 (Jp) 103 29 Kishan Chand chela Ram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 103-104 30 Gargidin Jawala Prasad v. CIT 96 ITR 97 (All) 104-105 31 Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC) 105-106 32 ACIT v/s Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) 106-107 33 P.R. Gupta v/s DCIT (2006) 36 Tax World 44 107 14 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 11. Ld. CIT(A) has neither appreciated the facts properly nor has applied the settled…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…witness must be given to the assessee in order to enable him to have an effective and useful cross examination as held in State of Punjab Vs Bhagat Ram AIR 1974 SC 2335; Vaasanji Ghela & Co Vs CST (1977) STC 544,553 (Bom), Gargi Din Jwala Prasad Vs CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (ALL). The learned AO violated the rule of audi alteram partem, which means that no one shall be condemned unheard, corollary of which is that he should be 10 Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur Vs Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur given reasonable notice of the nature of the case to be met, there are other rules of common law to the same effect. Re…

Ascendas (India) Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1255/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1255/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2005-2006. M/S. Ascendas (India) Private Ltd, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ist Floor, International Techpark, Income Tax, Pinnacle Building, Corporate Circle I(1) Taramani Road, Taramani, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 113. [Pan Aaacj 9055H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. Raghunathan Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Shri. A.V.Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rasingirji (1973) 91 ITR 544 (SC) (i) CIT vs. A. Raman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) (j) Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd vs. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 952 (Mad) (k) Dhakesari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (l) Gargi Din Jwala Prasad vs. CIT (1974) 96 ITR 97 (All)’’ The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) considered the submissions and confirmed the order of Assessing Officer and observed at para 4.2 of his order as under:- ‘’4.2 I have carefully considered the facts of the ITA No.1255/Mds/2015. :- 6 -: case and the submissions of the ld. Authorised Representative. I have also gone through the…