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

Mr. Rajesh Prabhudas Parekh, Mum vs. CIT (A), ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 25/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.25/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Mr. Rajesh Prabhudas बिधम/ Cit(A), Ito Parekh National Faceless Appeals Vs. D-508, Kamala Nagar, M. Centre, Delhi. G. Road, Kandivli (W), Mumbai-400067. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adlpp1104G (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anil Thakrar Revenue By: Shri Anil Gupta सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 28/02/2023 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 17.11.2022 For Ay. 2010-11. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Addition Of Rs.3,86,000/- (Being 50% Of Rs.7,72,000/-) Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakrarFor Respondent: Shri Anil Gupta
Section 131Section 148

…search showing that the assessee and his wife had paid cash of Rs.7,72,000/- over and above the sale consideration of Rs.54,18,115/-. For such a preposition, I rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (281 CTR 241) (SC). Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.3,86,000/-. 6. Ground no. 2, 3 and 4 are argumentative/general in nature so dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on this 31/03/2023. (ABY T. VARKEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 31/03/2023.…

DCIT, CC- 7 (4), Mumbai vs. Sawankumar T. Jajoo, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 6489/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledy. Cit, Cc-7(4) Vs. Shri Sawankumar T Room No. 659, 501, Salar Gokul Chsl Aayakar Bhavan, Salasar Bhoomi, Opp Mk Road, Maxus Mall, Temba Mumbai – 400020. Road, Bhayander (W) Mumbai – 401101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adcpj2044G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Richa Gulati.Dr Respondent By : Mr.Gaurav Bansal.Ar Date Of Hearing 23.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 49, Mumbai Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Fallowing Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Ms.Richa Gulati.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Gaurav Bansal.AR
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Dy. CIT, CC-7(4) Vs. Shri Sawankumar T Room No. 659, 501, Salar Gokul CHSL Aayakar Bhavan, Salasar Bhoomi, Opp MK Road, Maxus Mall, Temba Mumbai – 400020. Road, Bhayander (W) Mumbai – 401101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADCPJ2044G Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Richa Gulati.DR Respondent by : Mr.Gaurav Bansal.AR Date of Hearing 23.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The revenue has filed an a…

M/S. Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd, Rourkla vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Sambalpur

In the result, appeals of the assessee in IT(SS)A No

ITA 109/CTK/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Mar 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.31 To 33/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017 To 2018-2019) M/S Bee Pee Rollers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3593 P & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.34 To 39/Ctk/2022 & आयकर अऩीऱ/Ita No.109/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2017 To 2020-2021) M/S Bajrangbali Steel Industries Pvt. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Ltd., Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aabcb 3594 L & आयकर अऩीऱ (तऱाशियाां और अशिग्रहण)/It(Ss)A Nos.40 To 44/Ctk/2022 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015 To 2018-2019) M/S Bajrangbali Re-Rollers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Central Circle, Sambalpur Lal Building, Kachery Road, Rourkela, Sundergarh, Odisha-769012 Pan No. :Aaccb 6678 A (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate With Shri B.K. Tibrewal, Ca & Ms. Nisha Rachh, Ca Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr.Cit(Osd) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate with Shri
Section 133ASection 153ASection 292CSection 69Section 69C

…e assessee company that it did not seek an opportunity to cross-examine the suppliers/creditors. Moreover the assessment can't be cancelled merely on this ground. Even in the Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE vs. Andaman Timbers Industries (127 DTR 241), the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para-G as under: "6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority, though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of nat…

P M Nargunam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Central Circle-6, New Delhi

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

ITA 304/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 304/Del/2020 (A.Y 2014-15) बनाम P M Nargunam, Acit No. 1, Santosh Nagar, Vs. Central Circle-6, Pratap Vihar, New Delhi. Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. Pan No. Aaepn9976E अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 131Section 68

…se of Moti Adhesives (ITA 3133/Del/2018) in order dated 25/06/2018 copy placed before us, has been consistently holding while taking support from Hon’ble Apex court leading decision in Andaman Timber Industries case (Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006) reported at 127 DTR 241 that violation of principle of natural justice (here withholding of back material referred in reasons which is specifically requested for repeatedly) is a serious flaw and results in nullity of the order so passed, which is squarely applicable to present case. Be that as it may, even on merits, for the companies from where assessee reed, share ca…

Agroha Capital Services Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, War4D-1(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1143/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.M. Gargassessment Year: 2009-10 Agroha Capital Services Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Raj Kumar & Associates, Cas, Ward-1(4), L-7A (Lgf), South Extn. Part Ii, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca9515B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Raj Kumar, Ca & Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.03.2023 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, New Delhi, Dated 11.01.2018, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Ld. Assessee’S Representative (Ar) Submitted That The Assessee Does Not Want To Press Grounds No.1 & 2, Hence, The Same Are Dismissed As ‘Not Pressed.’

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CA &For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 133(1)Section 133(6)Section 153Section 68

…the said three letters and in absence of providing cross-examination, no adverse inference thereof can be taken against the assessee. The ld. Counsel has relied on the following case laws in support of the said submissions:- i) M/S. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES 281 CTR 241 (SC); ii) PRADEEP KUMAR GUPTA 207 CTR (DEL) 115; iii) CIT Vs. S.C. SETHI 168 TAXMAN 103 (RAJ); iv) ITO VS. PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA 131 TTJ (DEL.) (UO) 92; & v) CIT Vs. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 82 (Del) (121-145/RP-140) 7. The ld. AR submitted that the proposition rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NRA Iron & Stee…

Gajraj Tradecom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/KOL/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Bleassessment Years: 2015-16 Gajraj Tradecom Pvt. Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs. Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [Pan: Aaecg5268M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2023 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27/09/2022 For Assessment Year 2015-16 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Circle-6(1), Kolkata, Dated 23/12/2017. 2. Assessee Has Taken As Many As Ten Grounds & The Issues Involved In These Grounds Relate To Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed U/S 35(1)(Iii) & 35Ac Of The Act For Contribution Made By It Under Respective Sections & In Respect Of Credit Of Rs.10,00,000/- Towards Advance Tax Paid, Not Given In Computation Of Tax As Reflected In Form 26As. Grounds Of Appeal Are Not Reproduced For The Sake Of Brevity.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 35(1)(iii)Section 35A

…। आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, कोलकाता । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Years: 2015-16 GAJRAJ TRADECOM PVT. LTD. Deputy Commissioner of 9/12, Lal Bazar Street Vs. Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Kolkata - 700001 Kolkata [PAN: AAECG5268M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 29/12/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2023 O R D E R PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMB…

Ravi Shambhulal Mange, Mumbai vs. ITO -17 (3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 28/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleravi Shambhulal Mange V. Income Tax Officer – 17(3)(1) Bharat Wood Works, 26 Mumbai Sindhubaug A, Tilak Road Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai - 400077 Pan: Aacpb4205G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

…lal Mange 11. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: - (i). Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Odeon Builder (P) Ltd. (2019) 418 ITR 0315 (SC) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries v/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-11, (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC) (iii). H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, (2016)138 DTR (Bom.) 217 (iv). M/s Supertech Forgings (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT. (2022) 217 TTJ (Asr) 161 12. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted its written submissions, for the sake of clarity it is reproduced below: - “18. While confirming the disallowance of labour expenses paid to M/s Allied Compu…

Akansha Jain, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-57(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 8785/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.M. Garg & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2014-15 Akansha Jain, Vs. Ito, C-2/277, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-57(3), Delhi -110 053. New Delhi. Pan: Akkpj6488R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 Order Per C.M. Garg: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.07.2019 Of The Cit(A)-37, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under:- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.85,00,000/- On Account Of Alleged Deemed Income U/S 69B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 That The Ld. Ao As Well As Ld Cit(A) Had Made The Addition Without Considering The Submissions As Well As Evidences Furnished By The Appellant. 3 That The Ld. Ao & Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Not Providing The Statement As Well As Cross Examination Of Sh Satvir Singh On Which Ld Ao & Ld Cit(A) Has Relied For Making Addition Of Rs. 85,00,000/- On Account Of Alleged Deemed Income U/S 69B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4 That The Ld. Ao & Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Ignoring The Fact That The Circle Rate Of The Land Is Much Lower Than The Purchase Price Amounting Rs.15,00,000/- & Also Ignored The Fact That The Title Of The Land Is Not Clear. 5 The Addition Of Rs. 85,00,000/- Made By The Ld Ao As Well As Ld Cit(A) Is Erroneous & Arbitrary And, Therefore , The Addition Made Is Liable To Be Deleted. 6 That The Appellant Craves To Add, Amend, Alter, Vary And/Or Withdraw Or Rescind All Or Any Of The Ground Of Appeal On Or Before The Final Hearing.“

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Akansha Jain, Vs. ITO, C-2/277, Yamuna Vihar, Ward-57(3), Delhi -110 053. New Delhi. PAN: AKKPJ6488R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Salil Agarwal, Advocate & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 16.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2023 ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 12.07.2019 of the CIT(A)-37, New Delhi,…

Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Cercle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…giving opportunity to cross-examination is no material more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 comple…

Geeta Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…giving opportunity to cross-examination is no material more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 comple…

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1824/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO.1824/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16) DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) v. Soma Enterprises Ltd., Room No. 803, 8th Floor 8-2-623/5/1/1, Avenue-4 Pratishtha Bhavan Banjara Hills, Hyderabad Maharishi Karve Road Telangana-500034 Mumbai - 400020 PAN: AACCS8242F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.No. 46/MUM/2022 [ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO.1824/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2015-16)] Soma Enterprises Ltd., v. DCIT – Central Circle – 2(3) 8-2-623/5/1/1, Avenue-4 Room No. 803, 8th Floor…

Mesers Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-II, Bathinda

In the result the appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 287/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. RFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 287/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Ganesh Rice Mills Vs. The Dy. C. I. T. Jalalabad Road, Muktasar. Circle-II, Bhatinda [PAN:AACF G1896J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, A. R. Respondent by: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 09.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 15.02.2023 ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, J. M.: The instant appeal was filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Inc…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj) (h) PCIT Vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj) (h) PCIT Vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/RJT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj) (h) PCIT Vs. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 586/COCH/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…e copies of statement were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee. ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 Accordingly, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) would apply to the facts of the case and support the case of the assessee. Considering the same, no much weightage could be given to such statements and the same, on standalone basis, would not be sufficient to support the impugned additions. 7.8 In the last legal ground, the assessee has contested the impugned additions on the ground that…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 585/COCH/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…e copies of statement were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee. ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 Accordingly, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) would apply to the facts of the case and support the case of the assessee. Considering the same, no much weightage could be given to such statements and the same, on standalone basis, would not be sufficient to support the impugned additions. 7.8 In the last legal ground, the assessee has contested the impugned additions on the ground that…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 584/COCH/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…e copies of statement were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee. ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 Accordingly, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) would apply to the facts of the case and support the case of the assessee. Considering the same, no much weightage could be given to such statements and the same, on standalone basis, would not be sufficient to support the impugned additions. 7.8 In the last legal ground, the assessee has contested the impugned additions on the ground that…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 583/COCH/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…e copies of statement were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee. ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 Accordingly, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) would apply to the facts of the case and support the case of the assessee. Considering the same, no much weightage could be given to such statements and the same, on standalone basis, would not be sufficient to support the impugned additions. 7.8 In the last legal ground, the assessee has contested the impugned additions on the ground that…

M.K Rajendran Pillai, Pathanamthitta vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kollam

In the result the appeals for AYs 2012-13 to 2017-18 stand partly allowed whereas the appeal for AY 2018-19 stands allowed on legal grounds in terms of our above order

ITA 582/COCH/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, J.M. & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, A.M.

For Appellant: Shri Sajjan Kumar Tulsiyan (Advocate)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. J.M Jamuna Devi (Addl. CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 245C(1)

…e copies of statement were never confronted to the assessee and no opportunity of cross-examination was ever provided to the assessee. ITA Nos.580 to 586/Coch/2022 Accordingly, the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (62 Taxmann.com 3) would apply to the facts of the case and support the case of the assessee. Considering the same, no much weightage could be given to such statements and the same, on standalone basis, would not be sufficient to support the impugned additions. 7.8 In the last legal ground, the assessee has contested the impugned additions on the ground that…