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

Narendrakumar Bhanwerlal Nimbavat HUF, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.400/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Shree Rameshwar Logisics, 10-GF, Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, Riddhi Siddhi Arcade, Plot No.3, Sector- M.G.Road, Rajkot - 360001 8, Gandhidham(Kutch)-370210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPV3739N & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.402/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) M/s. Oswal Petrochem Vs. The DCIT, Ce…

Mahavir Impex, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 406/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.400/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Shree Rameshwar Logisics, 10-GF, Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, Riddhi Siddhi Arcade, Plot No.3, Sector- M.G.Road, Rajkot - 360001 8, Gandhidham(Kutch)-370210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPV3739N & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.402/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) M/s. Oswal Petrochem Vs. The DCIT, Ce…

Oswal Agricomm Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 404/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.400/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Shree Rameshwar Logisics, 10-GF, Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, Riddhi Siddhi Arcade, Plot No.3, Sector- M.G.Road, Rajkot - 360001 8, Gandhidham(Kutch)-370210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPV3739N & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.402/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) M/s. Oswal Petrochem Vs. The DCIT, Ce…

Oswal Petrochem, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

ITA 402/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250

…ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others 26 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.400/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, M.G.Road, Rajkot - 360001 Shree Rameshwar Logisics, 10-GF, Riddhi Siddhi Arcade, Plot No.3, Sector-8, Gandhidham(Kutch)-370210 स्थायीलेखासं./जी आइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPV3739N & आयकर अपीलसं./ITA No.402/RJ…

Shri Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 400/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.400/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) Shree Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham, Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot, Aaykar Bhavan, Shree Rameshwar Logisics, 10-GF, Amruta Estate, 2nd Floor, Riddhi Siddhi Arcade, Plot No.3, Sector- M.G.Road, Rajkot - 360001 8, Gandhidham(Kutch)-370210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ACVPV3739N & आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.402/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22) M/s. Oswal Petrochem Vs. The DCIT, Ce…

Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4699/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Kavitha Rajagopal & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 50CSection 56Section 69

…ed to them though assessee did visit his office and waited for the same. Such a position is covered in favour of the assessee by the 9 Narayanbhai Manjibhai Bodriya, AY 2014-15 decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) which held that when the assessment is made on the basis of statements recorded from third parties and if those statements were not provided nor cross examination was given to the assessee, the assessment order made based on those statements is bad in law. Further, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements for the propositi…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd. (Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 470/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…d statement to the appellant and also without giving an opportunity to cross examine the said person though requested for, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant in the context of purchases made by the appellant from the said party. 3. On the facts and circumstanc…

M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Formerly Known As M/S. Binani Cement Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 152/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…d statement to the appellant and also without giving an opportunity to cross examine the said person though requested for, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant in the context of purchases made by the appellant from the said party. 3. On the facts and circumstanc…

ACIT, Cir-14(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Ultratech Nathdwara Cement Ltd.(Known As M/S Binani Cement Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 611/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…d statement to the appellant and also without giving an opportunity to cross examine the said person though requested for, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant in the context of purchases made by the appellant from the said party. 3. On the facts and circumstanc…

Binani Cement Ltd., Mumbai vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle-Xxviii, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue as well as the assessee are dismissed as infructuous

ITA 1726/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 154Section 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 801ASection 92C

…d statement to the appellant and also without giving an opportunity to cross examine the said person though requested for, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. Reliance in this respect is placed in the case of Andamann Timber Industries vs CCE-281 CTR 241 (SC). 2.3 The CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that Mr. Vikrant Kayan had nowhere stated his involvement in the purchases made by the appellant from Sri Maa Sarda Fabrication Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, his statement is not relevant in the context of purchases made by the appellant from the said party. 3. On the facts and circumstanc…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The DCIT, 17, Naya Marg Court Circle, Central Circle-1, Udaipur. Udaipur. PAN No. AAHCA7939G Appellant Respondent Appellant by Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Respondent by Date of Hearing 26/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26 /05/2025 ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are four appeals filed by the assessee against four separate ord…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR. BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 706 to 709/Jodh/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 to 2016-17 Ashiana Buildprop Pvt. Ltd., 17, Naya Marg Court Circle, Udaipur. PAN No. AAHCA7939G Appellant Vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur. Respondent Appellant by Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. Respondent by Shri Lovish Kumar, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2025 Date of Pronouncement 26 /05/2025 ORDER PER DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. These are four appeals filed by the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Bharat Bhushan Suri, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2957/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraita No.2957/Del/2023, A.Y. 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Bharat Bhushan Suri Tax, Central Circle-16, E-248, Greater Kailash I, E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. New Delhi Ara Centre, Delhi Pan: Ahnpp6394A New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Mr. Javed Akhtar, Cit(Dr) Respondent By Sh. Deepanshu Mehta, Advocate Date Of Hearing 27/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 Order Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am This Appeal If The Revenue For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter, The ‘Ay’) 2017-18 Filed Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.08.2023 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi [Hereinafter, The ‘Cit(A)’].

Section 132Section 153CSection 69A

…not the assessee. The said agreement to sell was not signed; hence, it was argued that the same could not be relied upon. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on following decisions: i. Vinita Chaurasia [2018] 98 Taxmann.com 468 (SC), ii. Andman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC)’ iii. Laxmi Raj Shetty [1998] 3 SCC 319, iv. V C Shukla 1998 Taxmann.com 2155 (SC), v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 Taxmann.com 437, vi. D K Gupta [2008] 174 Taxmann 476 (Del) vii. Mayfair resorts India Ltd. ITA No.2008/Del/2021 (ITAT Del.) viii. Anil Bala Goyal & Others ITA No. 1533/del/2021 (ITAT Del.) ix. Jai Pal Agarwal ITA No.226/2010 (Del.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…istently used. Also, the assessee has not made any submissions to prove that the subsequently admitted receipts of Rs.146 crores were taken through cheques or DDs.” 211. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) held as follows:- “Not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adve…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…istently used. Also, the assessee has not made any submissions to prove that the subsequently admitted receipts of Rs.146 crores were taken through cheques or DDs.” 211. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) held as follows:- “Not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of Page 65 of 127 ITA Nos.1096 & 1207/Bang/2024 natural j…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-16, Delhi vs. Vinod Kumar Suri, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2958/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 132Section 153CSection 69A

…not the assessee. The said agreement to sell was not signed; hence, it was argued that the same could not be relied upon. The Ld. Counsel placed reliance on following decisions: i. Vinita Chaurasia [2018] 98 Taxmann.com 468 (SC), ii. Andman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC)’ iii. Laxmi Raj Shetty [1998] 3 SCC 319, iv. V C Shukla 1998 Taxmann.com 2155 (SC), v. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 Taxmann.com 437, vi. D K Gupta [2008] 174 Taxmann 476 (Del) vii. Mayfair resorts India Ltd. ITA No.2008/Del/2021 (ITAT Del.) viii. Anil Bala Goyal & Others ITA No. 1533/del/2021 (ITAT Del.) ix. Jai Pal Agarwal ITA No.226/2010 (Del.…

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Navnirman Co Op. Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1974/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1974/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Dcit Navnirman Co-Op. Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) Navnirman Bhawan V/S. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. Hdfc Bank Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aabfn 2975 L (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hem Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/05/2025

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "ायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी संजय गग", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी नरे !साद िस"ा, लेखा सद" के सम%। ] ] Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member And Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं /ITA No.1974/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 The DCIT Navnirman Co-op. Bank Ltd. बनाम/ Circle-2(1)(1) Navnirman Bhawan v/s. Ahmedabad – 380 015 Opp. HDFC Bank Ahmedabad City Ahmedabad – 380 009 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AABFN 2975 L (अपीलाथ'/ Appellant) (!( यथ'/ Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Hem Chhajed, AR Revenue by : Sh…

Shailesh Chhaganlal Haria Shah, Bhiwandi vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Kalyan

In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the appeal is allowed

ITA 1177/MUM/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 254(1)Section 69

…Hoshang Jamshed Mohta vs ITO (supra) on similar allegation of on-money against the same builder, on the plea of not allowing cross examination deleted the similar addition by following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (281 CTR 241) (SC) and CIT vs Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) (418 ITR 314). Considering the aforesaid factual and legal discussion, I do not find any justification of making addition on the basis of third party statement without affording opportunity of cross examination. In the result, ground no. 3 & 4 of the appeal is allowed. 11. Considering the fact that…

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Kamla Oleo Private Limited, Barotiwala

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 897/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.897/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ito M/S Kamla Oleo Private Limited बनाम/ Parwanoo, Village Buranwala, Barotiwala Vs. Himachal Pradesh-173220. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadck-7696-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 21-04-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20-05-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Cit(A)] Dated 25-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 29-12-2019. The Issues That Arise In The Appeal Are – (I) Addition Of Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68; (Ii) Disallowance U/S 14A; (Iii) Addition Of Unexplained Credit U/S 69A. Having Heard Rival Submissions & Upon Perusal Of Case Records, The Appeal Is Disposed-Off As Under. The Assessee Being

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ ITA No.897/CHANDI/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) ITO M/s Kamla Oleo Private Limited बनाम/ Parwanoo, Village Buranwala, Barotiwala Vs. Himachal Pradesh-173220. Solan, Himachal Pradesh. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AADCK-7696-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Adv.). – Ld. AR ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing…

Sunil Nagesh Shet, Thane West vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Thane

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

ITA 4547/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh&Girish Agrawal(Physical Hearing) Sunil Nageshshet Ito,Ward-3(5), Thane 1/18, Vinayak Bhavan Kolbad Road, Vs B-Wing, 6Th Floor, Near Pratap Cinema Thane (W), Ashar It Park, Road No. 16Z, Maharashtra-400601. Wagle Estate, Thane-West, [Pan No. Aegps 2748 B] Maharashtra-400604. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 132Section 143Section 143(2)Section 148Section 254(1)

…the department are concerned with the business with whom the assessee has entered into transaction for purchase of the property, we are not convinced with the said explanation. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Andaman Timber Industry v. CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross examine the witness whose statements were relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice which results in serious flaw thereby rendering the order a nullity. The present case in hand has identical facts of the above said decision wherei…