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 367,347 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

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2936/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITA No.2938/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) ITA No.2940/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anil Chaudhary, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 17, 10210, Library Road, New Delhi. Azad Market, Central Delhi, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : ACCPC9165C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Order : 30.08.202…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2936/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2015-16) ITA No.2938/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) ITA No.2940/DEL/2023 (Assessment Year: 2019-20) Shri Anil Chaudhary, vs. ACIT, Central Circle 17, 10210, Library Road, New Delhi. Azad Market, Central Delhi, Delhi – 110 006. (PAN : ACCPC9165C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, CA REVENUE BY : Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 Date of Order : 30.08.202…

Goyal Vegoils Limited, Kasar, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle -2, Kota

In the result ground no. 2 & 3 raised by the assessee

ITA 243/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…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 No. 243/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2012-13 cuke Goyal Vegoils Limited DCIT, Vs. C/o Goyal Vegoils Villahe Kasar, Circle-02, Kota NH-12, Tehsil Ladpura, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 2595 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, CA jktLo dh vksj…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…l Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 281 CTR 241 (SC), 12 STL Extrusion (P) Ltd [2010 : 333 ITR 269 13. CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. [(2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi)], 14. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2017] 397 ITR 136 (BOM)- SLP dismissed by SC 16 & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. 15. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prakhar Developers (P.) Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 48 (Madh…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…l Services Limited vs AC IT [in WRIT PETITION NO. 546 OF 2022] reported in [2022] 443 ITR 127 (Bombay), 10. Income Tax vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (21.08.2019- SC) [2019] 418 ITR 315 (SC), 11. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 281 CTR 241 (SC), 12 STL Extrusion (P) Ltd [2010 : 333 ITR 269 13. CIT v. Gangeshwari Metal P. Ltd. [(2014) 361 ITR 10 (Delhi)], 14. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in [2017] 397 ITR 136 (BOM)- SLP dismissed by SC 16 & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. 15. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Prakhar Developers (P.) Ltd [2024] 162 taxmann.com 48 (Madh…

Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, Jaysinghpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 541/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.541/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Vs Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Commissioner Of Income 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Tax, Op Hsg Society, Kolhapur. Jaysinghpur – 416101. Maharashtra Pan: Adlpg5040N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 234BSection 250Section 69

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay DanchandGhodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-op Commissioner of HSG Society, Income tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, PAN: ADLPG5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.541/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay DanchandGhodawa…

Sanjay Danchand Ghodawat, Jaysinghpur vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle Ichalkaranji Circle, Ichalkaranji

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 540/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.540/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.541/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-Op Commissioner Of Hsg Society, Income Tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, Pan: Adlpg5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Assistant Vs Sanjay Danchandghodawat, Commissioner Of Income 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co- Tax, Op Hsg Society, Kolhapur. Jaysinghpur – 416101. Maharashtra Pan: Adlpg5040N Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee

Section 234BSection 250Section 69

…।आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”बी” "ायपीठ पुणेम"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay DanchandGhodawat, Vs The Assistant 28 Sushreya, Yashwant Co-op Commissioner of HSG Society, Income tax, Jaysinghpur – 416101. Cir Ichalkaranji Circle, Maharashtra Ichalkaranji, PAN: ADLPG5040N Maharashtra – 416101. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.541/PUN/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanjay DanchandGhodawa…

Niyaz Sea Foods, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1019/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2Section 41Section 41(1)

…ight of the above decisions, statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 solely cannot constitute as incriminating material so as to make these additions. 20.17 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…

Niyaz Sea Foods, Mangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1018/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 2Section 41Section 41(1)

…ight of the above decisions, statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 solely cannot constitute as incriminating material so as to make these additions. 20.17 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…

Aragounder Muthusamy, Erode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -2(2), Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 231/CHNY/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Aug 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.231/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. Shri Aragounder Muthusamy, The Ito, 24A, Thiruvalluvar Street, Ward-2(2), Bhavani Main Road, Erode. Perundurai Taluk, Erode District-638 052. [Pan: Adqpm 7930 E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 144ASection 148

…the AO and for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT reported in [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC), wherein, their Lordships are held omission to cross-examination of Shri Aragounder Muthusamy :: 6 :: third party statement would make the statement null in the eyes of law. It would be gainful to refer to the order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of Naresh Pamnani v. ITO in ITA No.1561/Del/2018 for AY 2010-11 dated 05.03.2019 which has bee…

Rajrajeshwari Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 245/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…d party(ies). The assessment based on statement without giving an opportunity is not sustainable in law. 2.4The above view is supported by the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein 33 RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 1(3), KOTA the Honble Court observed - 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses 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 amoun…

Smt. Bridget Anthony(Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony), Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 509/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Parithivel, D.R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69

…ITA No.509/Bang/2024 Smt. Bridget Anthony, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Smt. Bridget Anthony (Legal Heir of Late Mr. Elevathingal Joseph Anthony) No.99, 9th Cross, 2nd Main ITO Vs. Udayanagara Ward-4(2)(1) Bangalore 560 016 Bangalore PAN NO :AQDPA9236H APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Sri Sandeep Chalapathy, A.R. Respondent by : Shri V. Parithivel, D.R. Date of Hearing : 15.05.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.08.2024 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL M…

Arvindkumar Amulkh Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-2 (3), Ahmeadabad

ITA 577/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ “सी“, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ C ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD "ी "स"धाथ" नौ"टयाल, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी मकरंद वसंत महादेवकर, लेखा सद"य के सम"। ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(s)/CO by : No(s) IT(SS)A No(s)/ Assess- अपीलाथ" / ""यथ" / ITA No(s)/ ment Appellant बनाम/vs. Respondent CO No(s) Year(s) IT(SS)A No. 1. 2009-10 The…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 481/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Years : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep & Ms. Girija G.PFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT (DR)
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 234ASection 68Section 69C

…44 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the decision is of no rescue to assessee. . Page 6 of 8 6.9. We are conscious of principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE, Kolkata-II, reported in (2015) 127 DTR 241, in support of his contention as well as decision of Hon’ble High Courts relied by the Ld.AR. All these decisions lay down that, without opportunity of cross-examination, statements cannot be relied upon against any asessee. However, such right, as held in various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not an absolute right and depends on circums…

Amita Multitrade Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4 (3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with above direction

ITA 279/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Amita Multitrade Private Limited Dcit Central Circle 4(3) Room No. 1921, 19Th Floor, 401/A, Pearl Arcade, Opp K Jewellers, Air India Building, Vs. Dawood Baug Lane, Nariman Point, Off Jp Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400058 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaica1012D Assessee By : Shri Ashok Bansa & Shri Ajay Daga, Ars : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Dr Revenue By Date Of Hearing: 18.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Bansa &
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…oss-examination of said party is not necessary in the present scenario which is in total disregard of the facts stated in the memo of appeal and contrary to the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3(SC). 4. The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of the Act of Rs. 10000000/- in respect of shares allotted at a premium. 4.1. In doing so, the Id. CIT(A) did not appreciate that the initial onus which lay on the appellant was fully discharged & the onus shifted to the AO who neither dislodged the material & evidence placed o…

ACIT Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Ahmad Ashfaque Karim, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 70/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

…e basis of such diaries also renders the assessment order as bad in law and the addition deserves to be quashed. We place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Trilok Chand Chaudhary (supra). Even Ld. AO failed to conduct any enquiry against nine persons present at the place of police raid which establishes that Ld. AO had made the impugned addition only on borrowed satisfaction nd without making any independent verification and thus grossly erred in making the impugned addition in the hands of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. Nuzhat Nasreen, L/H Ahmad Ashfaquekarim of Nuzhat Nasreen, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 69/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

…e basis of such diaries also renders the assessment order as bad in law and the addition deserves to be quashed. We place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Trilok Chand Chaudhary (supra). Even Ld. AO failed to conduct any enquiry against nine persons present at the place of police raid which establishes that Ld. AO had made the impugned addition only on borrowed satisfaction nd without making any independent verification and thus grossly erred in making the impugned addition in the hands of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Al-Karim Educational Trust, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 68/PAT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

…e basis of such diaries also renders the assessment order as bad in law and the addition deserves to be quashed. We place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Trilok Chand Chaudhary (supra). Even Ld. AO failed to conduct any enquiry against nine persons present at the place of police raid which establishes that Ld. AO had made the impugned addition only on borrowed satisfaction nd without making any independent verification and thus grossly erred in making the impugned addition in the hands of…

ACIT, Central Circle-2, Patna vs. M/S Al-Karim Educational Trust, Patna

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue i

ITA 67/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. Nos. 67 & 68/Pat/2021 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Acit, Central Circle-2, Patna Vs. M/S. A1-Karim Educational Trust Katihar Lane, Bailey Road, Khajpura Patna-800014 (Pan: Aaatm6309G) (Appellant) (Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri Sudipta Sannigrahi, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, CIT D/R
Section 250

…e basis of such diaries also renders the assessment order as bad in law and the addition deserves to be quashed. We place reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Trilok Chand Chaudhary (supra). Even Ld. AO failed to conduct any enquiry against nine persons present at the place of police raid which establishes that Ld. AO had made the impugned addition only on borrowed satisfaction nd without making any independent verification and thus grossly erred in making the impugned addition in the hands of…

John Distilleries Pvt Ltd., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 987/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

…ght of the above decisions, statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 solely cannot constitute as incriminating material so as to make these additions. 20.17 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…