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

Dhansukh Rawajibhai Patel, Palghar vs. ACIT Palghar, Palghar

In the result, appeal is on this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2802/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: D.T. Garasia & Shri N. K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhansukh Rawajibhai Acit Patel Palghar. Machhipada Sarawali, Vs. Po, Boisar, Tal & Po, Palghar - 401501 Pan: Abqpp9188B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 148Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 50C(1)Section 50cSection 80c

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N. K. PRADHAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhansukh Rawajibhai ACIT Patel Palghar. Machhipada Sarawali, Vs. PO, Boisar, Tal & PO, Palghar - 401501 PAN: ABQPP9188B (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue by : Shri Purushottam Kumar Date of Hearing : 12.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2017 O R D E R Per D.T. GARASIA, Judicial Member: The above titled appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 01.03.2017 of the Commi…

DCIT Cir 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Manohar Manek Alloys P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5586/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5586/Mum/2015 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11) Dy. Commissioner Of Income बनधम/ M/S Manohar Manak, Alloys P L Tax Cir 4(2)(2), 44, C P Tank Road, C P Tank, Vs. R. No.642, 6Th Floor, Mumbsi-400002 Aayakar Bhavan, M K Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan :Aaacm2688K अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Revenue By Shri Shivaji Gode प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Ms.Nimisha Bothara सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 7.11.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :16.1.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 7.9.2015, Passed By The Cit(A)-9, Mumbai, For The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Revenue Are As Under :

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 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…

Govind Bhilu Rathod, Vasai vs. ITO WD 4(1), Thane

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accepted

ITA 439/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 439/Mum/2016 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 253Section 271(1)Section 69C

…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…

Grrentex Exports India, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3311/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.D.Jainसर्वश्री ए.डी. जैन, न्याययक सदस्य आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3311/Mum/2015 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2009-10) बनाम/ M/S Greentex Exports India, Income Tax -Ward 14(2)(4), Modi Estate, 1St Floor, Mumbai. Vs. Opp. Chirag Nagar Police Stn. Ghatkopar West, Mumbai-400080 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…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 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rajeev G Kalathil, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed and the cross-objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

ITA 5312/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.5312/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2010-11) बिधम/ Dy. Commissioner Of Income Rajeev G Kalathil, Tax -25(3), M-605, Regency Park, Vs. 308, C-11, Rna Millennium Township, Bandra-Kurla Complex, M G Road, Kandivali (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400067 Mumbai-400051 (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Uday B Jakke
Section 69C

…IT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the parties, 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…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Tarla R Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5295/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah
Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 69Section 69C

…the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine 12 ACIT Vs. Tarla R Shah 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…