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

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 232/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…e of avoiding the orders of higher appellate authorities which by itself is the sole basis for holding the set aside order as void-ab-initio. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in 281 CTR 241 wherein it has been held as under: “Assessment – Natural justice – Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 231/JPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…e of avoiding the orders of higher appellate authorities which by itself is the sole basis for holding the set aside order as void-ab-initio. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in 281 CTR 241 wherein it has been held as under: “Assessment – Natural justice – Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 230/JPR/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…e of avoiding the orders of higher appellate authorities which by itself is the sole basis for holding the set aside order as void-ab-initio. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in 281 CTR 241 wherein it has been held as under: “Assessment – Natural justice – Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles…

Rajasthan Patrika (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 510/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…e of avoiding the orders of higher appellate authorities which by itself is the sole basis for holding the set aside order as void-ab-initio. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in 281 CTR 241 wherein it has been held as under: “Assessment – Natural justice – Denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses – Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles…

Success International, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward- 51(4), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 7301/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmasuccess International, Vs. Ito, C/O. Raj Kumar & Associates, Ward-51(4), Ca L-7A, )Lgf), South Extn, New Delhi Part-Ii, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaxfs3915K

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69C

…tness relied by the Ld. AO and the request was brushed aside on the ground that the statement were recorded by Director of Investigation so let assessee have opportunity from the said authority only. In this context he relied on M/s. Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC), Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR (DEL) 115. 9. Ld DR defended the orders of Ld CIT(A) by submitting that there is detailed discussion in the reasons as stand recorded. Computation error if any in the escaped income cannot be ground for interference and to hold the reasons as bad in law. He submitted that the law relied were distinguishable on fa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar vs. M/S Punjab Rice Land Private Limited, Tarn Taran

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

ITA 45/ASR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Adv. & Sh. Nimish Nagpal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 132(4)

…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. Nos. 44 & 45/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 Asstt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Central Circle, Ltd. Chabaal Road, Amritsar Tarn Taran [PAN: AAACP 9645B] (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 4/Asr/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 44/Asr/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Vs. Asstt. C.I.T., Ltd. Chabaal Road, Tarn Central Circle, Taran Amritsar [PAN: AAACP 9645B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ja…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Amritsar vs. M/S Punjab Rice Land Private Limited, Tarn Taran

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and

ITA 44/ASR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Sh. Jatinder Nagpal, Adv. & Sh. Nimish Nagpal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT DR
Section 132(4)

…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. Nos. 44 & 45/Asr/2021 Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2014-15 Asstt. C.I.T., Vs. M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Central Circle, Ltd. Chabaal Road, Amritsar Tarn Taran [PAN: AAACP 9645B] (Appellant) (Respondent) C. O. No. 4/Asr/2022 (Arising out of ITA No. 44/Asr/2021) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Punjab Rice Land Pvt. Vs. Asstt. C.I.T., Ltd. Chabaal Road, Tarn Central Circle, Taran Amritsar [PAN: AAACP 9645B] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant by : Sh. Ja…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Kalika Jewellers, Agartala

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

ITA 85/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “गुवाहाटी “ "यायपीठ गुवाहाटी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “GUWAHATI” BENCH, GUWAHATI (Heard from Kolkata Benches through web-based video conferencing platform) ] ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/GTY/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner of Income M/s. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [PAN: AAFJ5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanjay Modi, FCA Revenue by : Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P .Ltd., Ajmer vs. JCIT, Range-1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 397/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 194ASection 40

…s clearly shows that neither the AO was fully satisfied nor the assessee could furnished its explanation upto its own satisfaction. Yet then the AO acted hastily and made a huge addition running into crores. 7.4 Also kindly refer Andaman Timber vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 / 127 DTR 241 (SC)(DPB-12-16), wherein it was held that “Conclusion: Not allowing Assessee to cross-examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice”. This wa…

M/S Raj Auto Wheels P Ltd., Ajmer vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is party allowed

ITA 396/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocawteFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Meena, C IT-DR

…dinJwala Prasad Maholi& Ors. (1980) 124 ITR 203 (All). Hence any addition based on the basis of the material collected and not confronted to the appellant, has to be deleted altogether on this short ground alone. Also kindly refer Andaman Timber vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 / 127 DTR 241 (SC) (DPB 12-16), wherein it was held that “Conclusion: Not allowing Assessee to cross-examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of 22 ITA 396/JP/2015 RAJ…

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Ashrita Construction Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 2023/AHD/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri James Kurian, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Adv. &
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…l also submitted that it is settled law that in the absence of cross examination no addition could have been made based on statements recorded by the department and relied upon Supreme Court judgment in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in [2015] 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC). Thus the Ld. Senior Counsel stated that the Ld. CIT(A) after considering the above facts of the case, deleted the additions which does not require any interference and thereby requested to dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. I.T(SS.A No. 248/Ahd/2018 & Ors. A.Y. 2013-14 & 14-15 Page No 12 ACIT vs. M/s. Ashrita Constriction Pvt. Ltd. 7. We…

M/S Kuber Roller Flour Mills, Chandigarh vs. ITO-Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 145/CHANDI/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh26 Oct 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri B.M. Monga, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250(6)

…ut even confronting the statement so used as an solitary evidence against it by the Revenue which is clearly in violation of the settled legal principle of natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CIT (2015) 127 DTR 241(SC). It is thus a case where the disallowance by way of bogus purchases has been made by AO solely based on statement of Shri Rajesh Mittal which was not subjected to further examination and cross-examination during the course of assessment proceedings and the facts of the case are thus at par with the facts in case of Odeon Builders Ltd (supra)…

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1448/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 131Section 143(3)

…or the year under consideration is not valid in law and accordingly the addition made by him is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Court in M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in Civil Appeal no.4228 of 2006, dated 02.09.2015 (62 Taxmann.com 3) Annexure 8 held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness by the ITA Nos. 1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 7 The DCIT, CC-5(3) Vs. Kalpataru Limited adjudicating authority, where the statements of witnesses were made basis for impugned order, was a serious flaw which makes the order invalid in as much as it am…

DCIT Central Circle 5(3), Mumbai vs. Kalpataru Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are stand dismissed

ITA 1447/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos.1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 (A.Ys.2010-11 & 2011-12) The Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Kalpataru Limited Income Tax, Central Mumbai - 400055 Circle-5(3) Room No. 1906, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaack2108K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Vasanti Patel Respondent By : Tejinder Pal Singh Anand Date Of Hearing 03.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-53, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act. Since Similar Facts & Identical Issue Are Involved, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience Both Appeals Are Adjudicated Together. We Shall Take Ita No. 1448/Mum/2022 As A Lead Case & Its Finding Will Be Applied As Mutatis Mutandis To Other Appeal. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us:

For Appellant: Vasanti PatelFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand
Section 131Section 143(3)

…or the year under consideration is not valid in law and accordingly the addition made by him is not sustainable. The Hon'ble Court in M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise reported in Civil Appeal no.4228 of 2006, dated 02.09.2015 (62 Taxmann.com 3) Annexure 8 held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness by the ITA Nos. 1447 & 1448/Mum/2022 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 7 The DCIT, CC-5(3) Vs. Kalpataru Limited adjudicating authority, where the statements of witnesses were made basis for impugned order, was a serious flaw which makes the order invalid in as much as it am…

Ratanlal C. Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 3/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 292

…cords that the lower authorities had not made said seized material available to the assessee much less the concerned searched assessee’s cross- examination thereby violating the principle of natural justice in light of Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241(SC). He further referred to the searched party Shri Devichand Chhoriya’s search statement as well as his cross-examinations (latter one dated 11.12.2009) that he had already paid all the taxes regarding the forgoing three entries alleged to have been found in the seized documents in the impugned assessment herein and therefore, the necessary pres…

Ratanlal C. Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 2/PUN/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 292

…cords that the lower authorities had not made said seized material available to the assessee much less the concerned searched assessee’s cross- examination thereby violating the principle of natural justice in light of Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241(SC). He further referred to the searched party Shri Devichand Chhoriya’s search statement as well as his cross-examinations (latter one dated 11.12.2009) that he had already paid all the taxes regarding the forgoing three entries alleged to have been found in the seized documents in the impugned assessment herein and therefore, the necessary pres…

Ratanlal C. Bafna, Jalgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jalgaon

Accordingly. These assessee’s three appeals raising the above stated identical issues as partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01 To 03/Pun/2016 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 To 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M.G.Jasnani
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 153CSection 292

…cords that the lower authorities had not made said seized material available to the assessee much less the concerned searched assessee’s cross- examination thereby violating the principle of natural justice in light of Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241(SC). He further referred to the searched party Shri Devichand Chhoriya’s search statement as well as his cross-examinations (latter one dated 11.12.2009) that he had already paid all the taxes regarding the forgoing three entries alleged to have been found in the seized documents in the impugned assessment herein and therefore, the necessary pres…

Sita Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(1), Jaipur

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

ITA 56/JPR/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Oct 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…ctions and procedure provided in the Income Tax Act for cross examination of witness, therefore general procedure of evidence Act and principle of natural justice shall be applied as the Hon'ble Supreme court held in case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE ( 127 DTR 241) as under:- ‘’According to us not allowing the assessee cross examine the witnesses by the Adjudication Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice because of which the assessee wa…

M/S Vishal Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 297/KOL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ मनीष बोरड, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 297/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/s. Vishal Enclave Pvt. Ltd.....................................Appellant [PAN: AACCV 4967 E] Vs. ITO, Ward-13(4), Kolkata......................................Respondent Appearances by: Sh. S. Jhajharia, A/R, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Biswanath Das, CIT (D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : August 22nd, 2022 Date of pro…

Income Tax Officer 33(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Dheeraj Babulal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 4272/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ Ito-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7Th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash Chsl, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arwps1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Rajkumar Singh सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 19/07/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Revenue Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-45, Mumbai, Dated 29.03.2018 For A.Y.2014-15 & Dated 12.03.2019 For Ay. 2015-16 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4272/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 4092/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बिधम/ ITO-33(1)(4) Dheeraj Babulal Shah Room No. 708, 7th Floor, 23/A-12, Akash CHSL, Vs. Bldg. No. C-12, Jalawal Nagar, Ashok Nagar, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Kandivali (E), Mumbai- Bandra Kurla Complex, 400101. Bandra (E), Mumbai- 400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ARWPS1458D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Re…