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 367,368 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

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…e prejudice caused to him. Mere bald assertion of non-observance of the principles of natural justice is of no consequence. 6 Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 25. Further, Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has considered that “if there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could justify its action, and if the statement of the two witnesses who were unknown to the appellant was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause Notice, right to cross examination has to be given and held that we are of the opinion that if the testim…

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

…o be providing accommodation entries and therefore no addition was called for in the hands of the assessee without providing opportunity of cross examination in view of the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) that “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 amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affec…

The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. M/S. Safal Homes, Ahmedabad

ITA 90/AHD/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘बी’, अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद । अहमदाबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “ B ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD ] ] BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTNAT MEMBER ITA No.90/Ahd/2021, Asst.Year 2011-12 AND Cross Objection No.25/Ahd/2021, Asst.Year 2011-12 (in ITA No.90/Ahd/2021 – AY 2011-12) The DCIT M/s.Safal Homes Central Circle-1 Vs B Safal Homes, Near Tej Vadodara – 390 007 Motors b/h. Mirch Masala Restaurant Off. S.G. Hi…

Chaitali Gems, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office, 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3927/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm Chaitali Gems Income Tax Office Dw-6110, Bharat Diamond 19(1)(1) Bourse, Bandra Kurla Vs. Piramal Chambers, Complex, Bandra East, Lalbagh, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafc2052Q Assessee By : Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, Ar Revenue By : Shri H.M. Bhatt, Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Vaidyalingan, ARFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 143Section 147Section 69C

…tax act was passed determining the total income of the assessee of Rs. 1,39,48,570/– on 29/12/2017. 04. Assessee aggrieved with the same preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A. The learned CIT – A noted the decision of the honourable Supreme Court in 281 CTR 241 wherein it was held that when the assessment is made on the basis of the statements recorded from third parties and if those statements were not provided for cross- examination, assessment order based on the statements is bad in law. He further noted that there are many decisions that the addition made by the assessing officer on account of alleg…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 248/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद! के सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 DCIT Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 00…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 247/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद! के सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 DCIT Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 00…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 246/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद! एवं माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ%वाल ,लेखा सद! के सम(। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM 1. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ ITA No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 DCIT Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 00…

Shri Dinesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2624/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Vijay Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2623/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Amit Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., CC-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2592/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Shrey Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3(40, Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2565/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Mahesh Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2539/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Kishore Kumar Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2530/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

Shri Kamal Agarwal, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Central Circle-3(4), Kolkata

In the result, all the seven appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2522/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Amit Agarwal, Assistant Commissioner Of 49A, Tollygunge Circular Road, Vs. Income Tax, Central Circle- New Alipore, Kolkata-700053. 3(4), Kolkata. (Pan: Agapa0320R) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah & Shri S. M. Surana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. P. Barnab, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)

…referred by the AO for dislodging the claim made by the assessee which were never provided. 5. Ld. Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it is held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses…

M/S Godawari Traders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1445/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…force in the said submission since the AO has based his formation of belief on the information relating to DDDPL only. In this connection, we place our reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE, (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC). 8.3. Further, Ld. AO has made the addition for want of explanation on source of making the payments and creditworthiness of the assessee for making the said payments. From the material placed on record before us, we find that assessee has adequately discharged its onus giving all the relevant details for the source of payments and its 8 Go…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the revenue for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2014-15 are partly allowed

ITA 881/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal (Adv)For Respondent: Shri K. C Selvamani (DR)
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…the copy was never provided to the assessee and even the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shah was not afforded. For this, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, "failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity." 10.6 We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in…

Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT -CC-5(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 880/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…the copy was never provided to the assessee and even the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shah was not afforded. For this, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, "failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity." 10.6 We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in t…

Dy.CIT CC -5(2) Cent. RG. -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2571/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…the copy was never provided to the assessee and even the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shah was not afforded. For this, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, "failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity." 10.6 We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in t…

DCIT- CC5(2), Mumbai vs. Ipca Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee as well as the

ITA 2569/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15)

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…copy was never provided to the assessee and even the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shah was not afforded. For this, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, "failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity." 10.6 We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court…

CIT -CC5(2) Central RG., -5, Mumbai vs. M/S. Ipca Laboratories Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2565/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 880/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 879/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 882/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 881/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 883/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ipca Laboratories Ltd 48 Kandivli Industries Estate, Charkop Kandivli West, Mumbai-400067. बिधम/ Vs. Dcit, Central Circle-5(2) 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2563/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2009-10) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2565/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2567/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2569/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2571/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2014-15) 2

Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 35Section 80I

…the copy was never provided to the assessee and even the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. Shah was not afforded. For this, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In this case, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that, "failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity." 10.6 We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in t…