Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

281 CTR 241Supreme Court of India2015#32 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE authority for?

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

1,335

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Andaman Timber Industries · cross-examination · third party information · principles of natural justice · adverse inference · retraction of statement · section 132(4) · section 143(3) · nullity of order · denial of cross-examination

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 3127 DTR 241324 ELT 6412015 SCC OnLine SC 1051

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69Section 147Section 153ASection 148

Issues it is cited on

third party informationsection 65section 65bpreponderance of probabilitysection 131(1a)retracted statementsection 132(4a)on-moneysection 69bdumb documentsbogus ltcgstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Pooja Kedia, Jaipuir

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "B" JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक सदस्य एवं श्री राठोड कमलेश जयन्तभाई, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 1321/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2019-20 ITO, Ward 4(1), Jaipur बनाम Vs. Pooja Kedia Kedia House, Near Nadi Ka Phayak, Murlipura, Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: CDWPK4248P अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. & Sh. Saurabh Harsh, Adv…

PAN Realtors Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

ITA 4768/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 139Section 153Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 4767/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) ITA No:- 4768/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) PAN Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, S-406, LGF, Greater Vs. Central Circle-13, Kailash-11, New Delhi. New Delhi-110048. PAN No: AAFCP2034D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: The aforecaptioned appeals have been prefe…

PAN Realtoers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated above for statistical purposes

ITA 4767/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Khare, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 131Section 132Section 139Section 153Section 153CSection 37Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No:- 4767/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2014-15) ITA No:- 4768/Del/2024 (Assessment Year- 2015-16) PAN Realtors Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, S-406, LGF, Greater Vs. Central Circle-13, Kailash-11, New Delhi. New Delhi-110048. PAN No: AAFCP2034D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Sh. Rahul Khare, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 06.08.2025 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM: The aforecaptioned appeals have been prefe…

Income Tax Officer-12(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27 of statistical purposes whereas the application under Rule 27

ITA 2766/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan () Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ito-12(3)(1), Manju Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., R.No. 145, 1St Floor, Aayakar 57/59, 1St Floor, Nagdevi Street, Vs. Bhavan, M.K. Road, Maszid Bunder, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400 003. Pan No. Aaecm 6609 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 133(6)Section 68

…m any opportunity whatsoever to opportunity whatsoever to rebut the 'evidence'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman rebut the 'evidence'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman rebut the 'evidence'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC) held that denial to the Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC) held that denial to the Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC) held that denial to the assessee of the right to cross examine the witness whose assessee of the right to cross examine the witness whose assessee of the right to cross examine the witness whose statement was ma…

L.M. Fabrication, Distt. Solan, Himachal Pradesh vs. DCIT (Central Circle ), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 366/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 366/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 L.M Fabrication, Dcit, बनाम Village Nalka, Central Circle, Opp Raj Industry Shimla Vs. Vilalge Nalka Bagbania Po Manpura, Tehsil Baddi Solan H.P. 174101 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Aaefl3340C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.10.2021 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Apepals)-3, Gurgaon For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115Section 115BSection 133ASection 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ, च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 366/CHD/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 L.M Fabrication, DCIT, बनाम Village Nalka, Central Circle, Opp Raj Industry Shimla Vs. Vilalge Nalka Bagbania PO Manpura, Tehsil Baddi Solan H.P. 174101 "थायी लेखा सं./ PAN NO: AAEFL3340C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( PHYSICAL HEARING ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Var…

DCIT, Circle-I, Ludhiana vs. Adinath Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result both the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross objection filed by the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 122/CHANDI/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.122/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT बनाम M/s Adinath Textiles Circle-1, Ludhiana Limited K-302/1, Bholapur, Sahabana, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCA9074E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22/Chd/2024 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.122/Chd/ 2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Late Shri V G Siddhartha, Represented by Legal Heir Ms. Malvika Hegde, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2130/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Late Shri V G Siddhartha, Represented by Legal Heir Ms. Malvika Hegde, Bengaluru

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 2129/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mr. Ishaan Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1457/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mr. Ishaan Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incomer Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1456/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

Appeal of the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1449/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…owed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddha…

Mr. Amarthya Siddhartha L/R of Late Sri. V G . Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1448/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1447/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1446/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1445/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Mrs. Malavika Hegde L/R of Late Sri. V G Siddhartha, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bangalore

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1444/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…allowed, and no-show cause notice or proper hearing was given before the additions were made. These actions go against the fundamental principles of natural justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) held that denying cross-examination of a person whose statement is relied upon is a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Any addition made on such evidence is legally untenable. 72.3 Therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the learned CIT(A) rightly observed that since Shri V.G. Siddhartha h…

Ankit Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle- 3(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 305/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132Section 153C

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद, न् याययक सदस् य एवं श्री मिुसूदन सावडिया, लेखा सदस् य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.301 to 303/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2018-19 to 2020-21) Kiran Devi Agarwal, Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs. Central Circle-3(3), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN:ADOPA7925R (Appellant) (Respondent) आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.304 to 306/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Years:2018-19 to 2020-21) Ankit Agarwal, Dy. Commiss…

Jitendra Sharma, ACIT, Circle-19(1), Mumbai vs. Kashyap Mahesh Vora, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 4322/MUM/2024[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2025

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal a/w Shri AkhileshFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…see from assessment in the particular year. Moreover, the materials on record which have been made the basis of the reassessment have not been cross-examined by the Assessee. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [281 CTR 214] held that not allowing the appellant to cross- examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of the witness were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order a nullity. Regarding the onus of proof in such matters, the Assesee has discharged his burden by submitting all the requisite docu…

Disha Resources Ltd. (Formerly Known As Arihant Avenues and Credit Limited.), Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 535/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 35(1)(ii)Section 35(1)(iii)

…250. 5. In ground no. 6 the appellant is claiming that opportunity of cross examination was not provided to it. The appellant is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE(SC) (2015) 281 CTR 241 (2015) 127 DTR 241. In the instant case the Investigation was conducted to examine the affairs of M/s Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust. During the course of such investigation the Assessing Officer thereof examined the chief trustee who confessed that the said trust was providing entries to various entities for claiming bogu…