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

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

ITA 2563/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. बनाम/ 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…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 215/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 214/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 213/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 127/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 126/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 125/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…statement without their being any solid corroborative evidence on record. The assessee referred to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) as well as another decision in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) to support its submissions. 5.7 The Ld. CIT(A), upon perusal of relevant entries in the seized material, concurred that the name of the assessee did not appear ion any of the entries considered by AO to be pertaining to assessee. All the entries contained only the abbreviations “HW” or “HW(M)” and different extensions of the same. The Ld. A…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ving cross examination of living person whose statement is relied upon by the AO, the such assessment orders framed by AO is bad in law and to be quashed as held by Supreme Court judgement in case of Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein held that opportunity of cross examination not given leads to nullity and such assessment orders to be quashed. Further bench of tribunal in case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P) Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favou…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ving cross examination of living person whose statement is relied upon by the AO, the such assessment orders framed by AO is bad in law and to be quashed as held by Supreme Court judgement in case of Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein held that opportunity of cross examination not given leads to nullity and such assessment orders to be quashed. Further bench of tribunal in case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P) Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favou…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ving cross examination of living person whose statement is relied upon by the AO, the such assessment orders framed by AO is bad in law and to be quashed as held by Supreme Court judgement in case of Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein held that opportunity of cross examination not given leads to nullity and such assessment orders to be quashed. Further bench of tribunal in case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P) Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favou…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…ving cross examination of living person whose statement is relied upon by the AO, the such assessment orders framed by AO is bad in law and to be quashed as held by Supreme Court judgement in case of Andaman Timber Industries v Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein held that opportunity of cross examination not given leads to nullity and such assessment orders to be quashed. Further bench of tribunal in case of ACIT vs Vireet Investments (P) Ltd 165 ITD 27 (Delhi - Trib.) (SB) wherein it was held that two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible, that construction which favou…

DCIT-19(1), Income Tax vs. Pavan Kumar B Chandan (E-Filed), Mumbai

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 68

…y to white. Moreover, these statements could not have been used against the assessee because it has not been tested on the touchstone of cross-examination as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) and in the case of CIT v Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 315. Therefore, nothing turns on these statements of brokers. Thus, we find that no infirmity in the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.2,30,79,975/- + Rs.4,61,600/- by passing the impugned order. 8. We also note that the issue of denying exemption u/s 10(38…

Ajay Shankarlal Bankda, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 16(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2484/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Ajay Shankarlal Bankda बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-16(2) B Wing 4301, Db Woods, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Gokuldham, Goregaon East, Maharshi Karve Marg Mumbai-400063. Road, New Marine Lines, Churchagate, Mumbai- 400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpb2851J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 21.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.88,06,950/- Made By The Ao U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…of third party recorded behind the back of assessee cannot be relied upon for drawing adverse view against assessee unless assessee was allowed to cross-examine them [refer Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC)]. Therefore, the AO erred in relying on the statements of Shri Anil Kedia (director of M/s. Excel Stock Banking) and that of Shri Mayur Jain. And as noted (supra) any way it is not the case of AO that their testimony imputes any wrong doing on the part of assessee or his broker in the LTCG claim from transacting shares of M/s. Alpha Graphics…

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

…provided to the assessee so as to confront the entry operator about the said issues which, in itself is failure of principles of natural justice and as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [127 DTR 241 (SC)] not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority even when the statements of those witnesses were made 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 affected. 9…

Neeta Rajesh Lodha, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.408/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Neeta Rajesh Lodha बिधम/ Cit(Appeals)/Nfac 20/22, Shamseth Street, National Faceless Appeal, Vs. Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- Centre (Nfac), Delhi. 400002. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abdpl8053A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 20.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.2,61,43,231/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.5,22,865/- As Commission (2% Of Sales Proceeds) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…st made to AO vide letter dated 12.12.2017. Therefore, according to him, those statements even if incriminating cannot be used against the assessee unless cross- examined as held by Hon’ble supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, Ld. AR pointed out that it is not the case of AO that any entry operator 18 A.Y. 2011-12 Neeta Rajesh Lodha or exit provider has alleged any allegation against the assessee or her broker of any misconduct or wrong doing or being part of any illegal acts/modus-operandi to convert unaccounted money. This assertion of Ld. AR could n…

Mr Bhavesh Kantilal Kubadia, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-21(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Mar 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1490/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Mr. Bhavesh Kantilal बिधम/ Ito, Ward-21(1)(2) Kubadia Room No. 104, 1St Floor, Vs. 7, 2Nd Floor, Neminath Piramal Chamber, Building, S. K. Bole Road, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai- (Dadar (W), Mumbai- 400012. 400028. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Agrpk2377D (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 24.04.2023 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.77,02,597 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act As Well As Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2,31,038/- As Commission (3% Of Ltcg) For Arranging Bogus Ltcg U/S 69 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68Section 69

…g vide the assessee’s reply dated 12.12.2017. Therefore, according to him, those statements even if incriminating cannot be sed against the assessee unless cross-examined as held by Hon’ble supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, Ld. AR pointed out that the statements (reproduced by the AO in the assessment order) of these persons would reveal that they have not made any allegation against the assessee or her broker of any misconduct or wrong doing or being part of any illegal acts/modus-operandi to convert unaccounted money. This assertion of Ld. AR could…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 95/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.95/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 09.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.3,20,97,772/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…e AO allowed assessee to cross-examine them. Therefore, according to him, those statements even if incriminating cannot be used against the assessee unless cross-examined as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, Ld. AR pointed out that the statements (referred by the AO in the assessment order) of these persons would reveal that they have neither made any 18 A.Y. 2013-14 Sheetal Rupesh Savla allegation against the assessee nor her broker of any misconduct or wrong doing or being part of any illegal acts or being involved in any modus- ope…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 94/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.94/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 07.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao By Making An Addition Of Rs.73,11,760/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred “The Act” Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…e AO allowed assessee to cross-examine them. Therefore, according to him, those statements even if incriminating cannot be used against the assessee unless cross-examined as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, Ld. AR pointed out that the statements (referred by the AO in the assessment order) of these persons would reveal that they have not made any allegation against the assessee or her broker of any misconduct or wrong doing or being part of any illegal acts/modus-operandi to convert unaccounted money. This assertion of Ld. AR could n…

Sheetal Rupesh Salva, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-20(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 93/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.93/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sheetal Rupesh Savla बिधम/ Ito Ward-20(3)(3) 601 Dev In Apartments, 6Th Floor, Piramal Vs. Adenwala Road, Plot-511, Chamber, Parel, Mumbai- Matunga, Mumbai-400019. 400012. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adhpk2176R (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv) Shri Dinesh Shah Revenue By: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/03/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 05.12.2022 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding The Action Of The Ao Making An Addition Of Rs.3,17,12,750/- U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) Which According To The Assessee Ought To Have Been Held To Be Exempt U/S 10(38) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Dharen V. Gandhi (Adv)For Respondent: Shri Nayanjoti Nath (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 68

…ide the assessee’s reply dated 21.12.2018. Therefore, according to Ld AR, those statements even if incriminating cannot be used against the assessee unless cross-examined as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, Ld. AR pointed out that the statements (reproduced by the AO in the assessment order) of these persons would reveal that they have not made any allegation against the assessee or her broker of any misconduct or wrong doing or being part of any illegal acts/modus-operandi to convert unaccounted money. This assertion of Ld. AR could…

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…ording to Ld. AR, the statement recorded behind the assessee’s back and not tested on the touch-stone of the cross-examination cannot be relied upon by the AO as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). Moreover, according to the Ld. AR, the selected extracted statements (reproduced portions in the assessment order) does not mention the name of assessee/or its partners and the statements does not show that assessee/partners indulged in any wrong doing or have availed accommodation entry from these persons (entry operators). Therefore, acco…