Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders

102 ITR 366High Court1976#1718 most cited

What is Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders authority for?

When an Income-tax Officer relies on third-party evidence to make an addition to an assessee's income, the assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine those parties. Failure to provide this opportunity violates natural justice and invalidates the addition.

66

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

Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders · 102 ITR 366 · opportunity to cross-examine · principles of natural justice · third party evidence · unexplained cash credit · Section 68 · Section 69C · genuineness of transaction · assessee's right to confront · adverse material · Kerala High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 68Section 69CSection 133(6)Section 131Section 139Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

onus of proofunexplained expendituresection 69csection 133aincome-tax officergenuineness of the transactionsection 133(6)unexplained cash creditsection 10reassessment proceedingsundisclosed incomesection 68

Judgments citing Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders

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

…gh not the sources thereof (Dal Chand & Sons v CIT (1944)\n12 ITR 458 (Lah)) to the assessee and if this is not done, the principles of natural justice stand\nviolated (KishinchandChellaram v CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); ITO (Addl) v Ponkunnam\nTraders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker); International Forest Co. V. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J&K);\nSTO v Uttareswari Rice Mills (1973) 89 ITR 6 (SC); Motipur Zamindari Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Ag ITO\n(1972) 83 ITR 778 (Pat); CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC),\nHarmukhraiDulichand v CIT (1928) 3 ITC 198 (Cal.).\nThis requirement of pre-communication to the Asse…

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) (iv) Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT (2004) 141 Taxman 559 (Mad) (v) M. Mohd. Ishaq v. CIT (1995) 27 ITR 510, 513 (Punj) (vi) Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (vii) Addl. ITO Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker) (viii) State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (K.T.) AIR 1977 SC 1627 18. The Ld. AR rested his arguments praying for deletion of the additions both on facts and law. 19. The Ld. DR, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A), and referring to the jurisdictional High court in the case of “Rajat Bansal vs CIT [2011] 11taxmann.com 357 (P &…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 (Appel…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment 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 (Appel…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1463 to 1465/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Kailash Chand Maheshwari DCIT, Vs. 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Central Circle-02, Company Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) v. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 PAN: AGPPB9599J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : None Department Represented by : Vranda U. Matkari Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 20.04.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 12.07.2023 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM)…

KAMLESH M. KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO WARD -32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINA ARVIND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO 22(1)(6), MUMBAI vs. BROADCASTING SERVICES , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1312/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ACIT- CIRCLE- 9(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GALA PHARMA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6007/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-28 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GANESH ENGINEERING WORKSHOP , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5773/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ACIT 13 (3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELD TECH ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED `, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6027/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

DY CIT-9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S APEX SOFTCELL (INDIA) PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6272/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

DY CIT-9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S APEX SOFTCELL (INDIA) PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6271/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

AAS MOHAMMED KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5985/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO-20(20)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI KAMRULLA REHATULLA KHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5737/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Sign
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO 32 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. EMPEE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6798/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO 32 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. EMPEE ENGINEERING CORPORATION , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6797/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AUTONUM CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5660/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

ITO WARD 1, PALGHAR vs. SHRI. ATUL KUMAR D SHAH, PALGHAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5553/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with hi…

Showing 1–20 of 66 · Page 1 of 4