Additional Income-tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders

102 ITR 366High Court1976#1700 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 366,005 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

Income Tax Officer-25(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samrat Exports, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5033/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2007-08

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 5033/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2007-08) Income Tax Officer – 25(1)(1) v. M/s. Samrat Exports Room No. 203, 2nd Floor P No. -17, Unit-13 Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex Marol Co-operative Indl. Estate Bandra (E), Mumbai -400051 M.V Road, Marol, Andheri(E) Mumbai 400059 PAN: AAKFS8406J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Date of Hearing : 16.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 O R D E R…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. M/S. Shr Industries, Thane

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5013/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
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, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. M/S. Shr Industries, Thane

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5012/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
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 12 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. Selvaraj Anthony Muthu Chettiar, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4642/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. 4642/MUM/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10) Income Tax Officer – 12(1)(2) v. Selvaraj Anthony Muthu Chettiar Gala No. 2058, 2nd Floor Room No. 146A, 1st Floor Nirman Ind. Estate Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Village Chincholi Link Road Malad(W), Mumbai – 400 064 PAN: AABPA2776L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Vijay Kumar Menon Date of Hearing : 16.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 O R D E R PER…

ITO, Ward-20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr. Sadiq Mohammed Hussain Dadan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4560/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
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-20(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Mr. Sadiq Mohammed Hussain Dadan, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4559/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
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- 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Creative Electrical Innovative Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5389/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleacit – Circle - 6(2)(1) V. M/S. Creative Electrical Innovative Pvt. Ltd., Unit No. 12, 18B, Hammer Smith Indl. Estate Room No. 504, 5Th Floor Pathare Marg, Off. Sitala Devi Temple Road Aayakar Bhavan Mahim (W), Mumbai - 400016 M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aadcc4035H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi
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…

Play Games 24 X 7 Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr. .CIT-(A) 13, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3910/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi: A.Y : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Percy PardiwalaFor Respondent: Shri Shishir Dhamija
Section 263

…case laws have also been referred :- i) R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (176 ITR 169) (SC); ii) Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. Income Tax Officer (83 ITR 508) (Ker.); iii) Addl. Income Tax Officer v. Ponkunnam Traders (102 ITR 366) (Ker.); iv) Colonisers v. ACIT (41 ITD 57) (Hyd. SB); and, v) Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1416) Thereafter, learned counsel of the assessee has distinguished the following decisions :- i) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. (386 ITR 162) (Cal.); ii) Kapurchand Shrimal v. CIT (131 ITR 451) (SC); and, iii) State of U.P. v. Sud…

ACIT - Circle- 6(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5390/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleacit – Circle – 6(2)(1) V. M/S. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 504, 5Th Floor 1St Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dadar Departmental Stores Mumbai – 400 020 M.C. Jawle Marg, Dadar(W) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan: Aabcc3349L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Dinkle Hariya Department By : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora

For Appellant: Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACIT – Circle – 6(2)(1) v. M/s. Colo Color Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 504, 5th Floor 1st Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Dadar Departmental Stores Mumbai – 400 020 M.C. Jawle Marg, Dadar(W) Mumbai – 400 028 PAN: AABCC3349L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dinkle Hariya Department by : Shri Kumar Padmapani Bora Date of Hearing : 06.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the…

Vijay B Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. ITO-17(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 913/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blevijay B Shah (Huf) V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(5) Room No.137 12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 Pan: Aabhv7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Samatha Mullamuddi
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vijay B Shah (HUF) v. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(5) Room No.137 12A Giriraj Building Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road St Road, Carnac Bunder Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 092 PAN: AABHV7438J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Smt Samatha Mullamuddi Date of Hearing : 26.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Inc…

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1314/MUM/2019[201-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1312, 1313 & 1314/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 1(2) v. Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh Room No. 24, 6th Floor 136/6, Jay Neminath Darshan Ashar I.T Park, Road No. 16Z Garden Lane, Sanghani Estate Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 088 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 PAN: AIXPP7863R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Raje Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date of Prono…

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1313/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1312, 1313 & 1314/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 1(2) v. Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh Room No. 24, 6th Floor 136/6, Jay Neminath Darshan Ashar I.T Park, Road No. 16Z Garden Lane, Sanghani Estate Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 088 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 PAN: AIXPP7863R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Raje Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date of Prono…

ITO, Ward-1(2), Mumbai vs. Mehul Indukumar Parekh, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1312/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Deepak RajeFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs. 1312, 1313 & 1314/MUM/2019 (A.Ys: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Income Tax Officer – 1(2) v. Shri Mehul Indukumar Parekh Room No. 24, 6th Floor 136/6, Jay Neminath Darshan Ashar I.T Park, Road No. 16Z Garden Lane, Sanghani Estate Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 088 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 PAN: AIXPP7863R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak Raje Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 04.03.2020 Date of Prono…

R No. 25 B Wing 6Th Floor Ahsar It Park Wagle Indil. Estate Road No 16Z Thane West, Thane vs. Shri. Jignesh Amrutlal Shah, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1267/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -2(1) V. Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Shah Room No. 25, B-Wing, 6Th Floor A/203, Walchand Complex 90 Feet Road, Bhayander(W) Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Thane – 401 101 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan:Accps2511E Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Department By : Shri Bheraram

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh AmrutlalFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer -2(1) v. Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Shah Room No. 25, B-Wing, 6th Floor A/203, Walchand Complex 90 Feet Road, Bhayander(W) Ashar I.T Park, 6th Floor Thane – 401 101 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate PAN:ACCPS2511E Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Jignesh Amrutlal Department by : Shri Bheraram Date of Hearing : 03.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is f…

ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane vs. Shri. Premkumar Shehgal, Thane

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1262/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer -3(2) V. Shri Premkumar Shehgal Gala No. 09, Gupta Deshpande Estate Room No. 4, B-Wing, 6Th Floor Pokhran Road No.1, Upavan Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Thane – 400 604 Road No. 16Z Wagle Industrial Estate Pan:Accps1803K Thane – 400 604 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Sandhya Rathi Department By : Shri Bheraram

For Appellant: Ms. Sandhya RathiFor Respondent: Shri Bheraram
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 Ward 1(4), Mumbai vs. Jagdish R Panchal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5337/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 1(4) V. Jagdish R. Panchal Room No. 11, B-Wing B-504, Vasant Vihar Society Ashar I.T Park, 6Th Floor Ghatipada Road, Mulund (W) Road No. 16Z Mumbai – 400 080 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 Pan: Aijpp8167C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Samatha Mullamudi
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 1(4) v. Jagdish R. Panchal Room No. 11, B-Wing B-504, Vasant Vihar Society Ashar I.T Park, 6th Floor Ghatipada Road, Mulund (W) Road No. 16Z Mumbai – 400 080 Wagle Industrial Estate Thane – 400 604 PAN: AIJPP8167C (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Ms. Samatha Mullamudi Date of Hearing : 25.02.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 28.02.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue aga…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…requirement of section 144 is not fulfilled and the AO has not given an opportunity to the assessee to contradict the materials upon which the Assessing Officer wants to base his estimate. Assessment framed is bad in law. Addl. ITO Vs Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker). b. The Definition of word material and evidence has further been elaborated by Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been held that though the scope of the phrase can be wider but it can be past history of the case, subsequent history of the case, facts of the case or the profit rate of other comparable cases. c. The rule of law on this subj…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S. Plant Edu. (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3702/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…n bills/vouchers, should not have rejected the books of account of the appellant on this basis. Furthermore, no opportunity was provided to the appellant to rebut the materials so gathered. The Division Bench in the case of ADDL ITO V Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker), confirmed the order of the Single Judge, who had quashed such additions ,where opportunity not been provided to the appellant. …….. 4.5 In the present case the A.O rejected the books of account without specifying as to whether any of the above three conditions was satisfied. Furthermore, instead of passing order u/s 144 of the Income Tax A…

DCIT, Gurgaon vs. M/S Planet Edu. (P) Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 3574/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…n bills/vouchers, should not have rejected the books of account of the appellant on this basis. Furthermore, no opportunity was provided to the appellant to rebut the materials so gathered. The Division Bench in the case of ADDL ITO V Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker), confirmed the order of the Single Judge, who had quashed such additions ,where opportunity not been provided to the appellant. …….. 4.5 In the present case the A.O rejected the books of account without specifying as to whether any of the above three conditions was satisfied. Furthermore, instead of passing order u/s 144 of the Income Tax A…

M/S. Planet Edu Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 3473/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Sood, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Senior DR
Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…n bills/vouchers, should not have rejected the books of account of the appellant on this basis. Furthermore, no opportunity was provided to the appellant to rebut the materials so gathered. The Division Bench in the case of ADDL ITO V Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker), confirmed the order of the Single Judge, who had quashed such additions ,where opportunity not been provided to the appellant. …….. 4.5 In the present case the A.O rejected the books of account without specifying as to whether any of the above three conditions was satisfied. Furthermore, instead of passing order u/s 144 of the Income Tax A…