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

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 200 & 201/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 cuke Giriraj Prasad Goyal ITO, Vs. 1 Goyal Bhawan, Housing Board Tonk Coloni Bus Stand, Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGFPG 9679 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh…

Dy C.I.T.Central Cir-6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2434/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, 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) wherein it has been 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. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy. Citcent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2433/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, 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) wherein it has been 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. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2432/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, 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) wherein it has been 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. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy. CIT Cent Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Surendra B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the Revenue for the assessment years 2014-15

ITA 2431/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, 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) wherein it has been 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. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Subodhkumar Ashokkumar Gupta, Vesu, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 47/SRT/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.47/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Central Circle-3, Vs. Subodhkumar Ashokkumar Gupta, Surat. A/2/801, Nandni Appartment, Near- Jolly Residency, Vesu, Surat-395007. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acjpg7129F Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca 31/05/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2023

Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ssee also demanded cross examination of the persons whose statement has been relied upon but the assessing officer did not allow any such opportunity of cross examination to assessee. As decided by Honorable Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries [281 CTR 241 (SC)] not allowing assessee, the cross examination, witness by adjudicating authority when statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order amounted to serious flaw which make the impugned order nullity and it amounts to violation of the principles of Subodhkumar A. Gupta natural justice. Similarly, the jurisdictional Gujarat Hi…

Disha Education Society, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result ground of the appeal in the instant appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 60/RPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.32&60/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year:) M/S Disha Education Society, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Disha Crown, Katchana Road. Exemption, Bhopal Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pan No. :Aaatd5249C : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…persons. However, none of the deponents were allowed to be cross examined by the assessee. In view of this, their statements could not have been utilized to draw adverse inference. Reliance on Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) 11. No enquiry by ld. Pr. CIT Pr. CIT has not carried out any enquiry whatsoever 12. Assessee granted registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G subsequently. Due to amendment in law, assessee applied for re-registration u/s 12A and 80G, which was granted, Registration certificates at PN 127 to 131 of PB. 13 ha Educational Trust & Bimalade…

Disha Education Society, Raipur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Bhopal

In the result ground of the appeal in the instant appeal of the assessee are allowed

ITA 32/RPR/2019[0]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jun 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.32&60/Rpr/2019 (Assessment Year:) M/S Disha Education Society, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Disha Crown, Katchana Road. Exemption, Bhopal Shankar Nagar, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Pan No. :Aaatd5249C : Shri R.B.Doshi, Ca "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V.K.Singh, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 08/06/2023

For Respondent: Shri V.K.Singh, CIT-DR
Section 12A

…persons. However, none of the deponents were allowed to be cross examined by the assessee. In view of this, their statements could not have been utilized to draw adverse inference. Reliance on Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) 11. No enquiry by ld. Pr. CIT Pr. CIT has not carried out any enquiry whatsoever 12. Assessee granted registration u/s 12A and approval u/s 80G subsequently. Due to amendment in law, assessee applied for re-registration u/s 12A and 80G, which was granted, Registration certificates at PN 127 to 131 of PB. 13 ha Educational Trust & Bimalade…

Ridhi Bagaria, Cuttack vs. ITO Ward-1(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 76/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack18 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kishore Ch. Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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…

Narender Singh, Rewari vs. ITO Ward - 2, Rewari

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1577/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2011-12
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…nst the assessee in the Income Tax proceedings and such material/statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC). Thus, the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam cannot be relied upon against the assessee. There is no other material available on record so as to make any addition against the assessee. Thus, onus upon the Revenue Department to prove that assessee paid cash to Dr. P. Mahalingam or the Medical College is not discharged in the present case. In vie…

Narender Singh, Rewari vs. ITO Ward - 2, Rewari

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 1576/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2023AY 2010-11
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…nst the assessee in the Income Tax proceedings and such material/statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC). Thus, the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam cannot be relied upon against the assessee. There is no other material available on record so as to make any addition against the assessee. Thus, onus upon the Revenue Department to prove that assessee paid cash to Dr. P. Mahalingam or the Medical College is not discharged in the present case. In vie…

Rashi Agrawal, Cuttacki vs. Income Tax Officer, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 56/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack04 May 2023AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Keshav Dubey, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)

…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…

Amarjeet Kaur Bahri Individual, New Delhi vs. DCIT Center Circle-7, Delhi

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

ITA 2762/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri S.C. Singhal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC” DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.2762/DEL/2022 Assessment Year 2015-16 Amarjeet Kaur Bahri Individual, v. DCIT, N-8, Rajouri Garden, Central Circle-7, New Delhi. Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAAPB0902A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri S.C. Singhal, CA Respondent by: Shri Mohd. Gayasuddin Ansari, CIT-DR Date of hearing: 18 04 2023 Date of pronouncement: 18 04 2023 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner…

Rajeshwer Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1910/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1909 & 1910/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, VersuS DCIT, Central Circle, O-6, Lawyers Colony, Bye Ghaziabad. Pass road, Agra. PAN: AEOPS8185E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. Adv. Ms. Shweta Bansal, Ld. CA Sh. Sudarshan Roy, Ld. Adv Respondent by : Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR Date of hearing: 16.01.2023 Date of order : 11.04.2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. These appeals have been preferred…

Rajeshwer Yadav, Uttar Padesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. BRR KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 1909 & 1910/Del/2022 Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19 Rajeshwar Singh Yadav, VersuS DCIT, Central Circle, O-6, Lawyers Colony, Bye Ghaziabad. Pass road, Agra. PAN: AEOPS8185E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. Adv. Ms. Shweta Bansal, Ld. CA Sh. Sudarshan Roy, Ld. Adv Respondent by : Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR Date of hearing: 16.01.2023 Date of order : 11.04.2023 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M. These appeals have been preferred…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir.1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 345/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. Pan No. Aaace 8700 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Virtual hearing) A.C.I.T., Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Circle-1(1)(1), Enviro House, Opp. Bank of Vs. Surat. Maharashtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. PAN No. AAACE 8700 C Appellant/ assessee Respondent/ revenue Department represented by Shri Ashok B Koli, (CIT-DR) Assessee represented by Shri Ankur Shah, CA Date of hearing 27/02/2023 Date of pronouncement 05/04/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the revenue…

Shri Rupal Jaian, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 209/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Apr 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh, (Addl. CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ot offer the opportunity of cross examination even though the assessee has sought specifically. Thus, as observed in various 13 Smt. Rupal Jain, Jaipur. judgment specifically the famous decision of apex court in the case of CCE vs. Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241 the assessment based on statement without giving an opportunity is not sustainable in law. We further note that the assessee produced copy of affidavit of Shri Anil Agarwal who has retracted his statement, however without going into controversy of the retraction of the statement, the fact remains that the statement of a third party cannot be used…

Shri Ashnuth Goyal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Ward -1(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 276/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Thus, The Addition Of Rs. 30,04,864/- So Uphold Deserves To Be Deleted. Shri Ashnuth Goyal Vs Acit, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

…eliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Caselaw Paper Book Pages 134-143) quashe…

Shri Arnav Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 275/JPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena,Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)Section 68

…eliance by AO on statements recorded by the Investigation Wing to conclude that the capital gains are bogus without giving an opportunity of cross examination is a complete violation of principles of natural justice as held in CCE Vs Andaman Timber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC). The AO has not controverted the evidence of purchase bills, payment of consideration through bank, DEMAT account, allotment of amalgamated shares, sale of shares through stock exchange at prevailing price, payment of STT etc. Hon’ble Ahmedabad bench of ITAT also in the case of Smt. Sunita Jain vs ITO (Case law Paper Book Pages 134-143) quash…

Mr. Hoshang Jamshed Mohta, Mumbai vs. ITO-35(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 36/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.36/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Mr. Hoshang Jamshed बिधम/ Ito-35(1)(4) 8Th Floor Kautilya Mohta Vs. C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Bhavan, Avenue 3, G- Llp. Esplanade House, 29, Block, Bandra Kurla Hazarimal Somani Marg, Complex Bandra East, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Mumbai-400051. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acopm4448G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Jitendra Jain Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 01/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/03/2023 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. Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 22.09.2022 For Ay. 2011-12. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Upholding Addition Of Rs.8,75,000/-. 3. Brief Facts Is That The Assessee Had Filed Return Of Income For Ay. 2011-12 On 25.07.2011 Declaring Total Income At Rs.5,08,820/-. Later, The Ao Got Information That Investigation Wing While Conducting Search In The M/S Sheth Developer Pvt. Ltd, It Was Found That The Said Party Had Accepted ‘On Money’ For Flats From The Buyers Of Flats. & The Assessee Was One Such Buyer Of A Flat & Had Paid Rs. 8,75,00/- For Purchase Of Flat No. 1003 In Vasant Lawns-Green Developed By Sheth Developers. According To Ao, The Assessee Has Paid/Cash ‘On Money’ Of Rs.8,75,000/- For Purchase Of An Immovable

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 132(4)Section 4

…re making the addition), the AO failed to summon the developer and allow the assessee to cross-examine the developer which vitiate the addition and for that we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (281 CTR 241) (SC) and CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. (2019) (418 ITR 314). The assessee also brought to my notice a similar action this Tribunal in the case of an assessee whose case was also reopened for payment of ‘on money’ to the Sheth Developer. And this Tribunal has deleted the addition (refer ITO Vs. M/s. Samriddhi Finvest Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd…