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

Paramjit Singh Seehra, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1318/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Kavitha Rajagopal () Paramjit Singh Seehra Vs Acit-10(3)(1), Mumbai C-17/403, Bakul Off, 2Nd Pokhran Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Road, Vasant Vihar, Thane (West) Maharashtra-400 610 Pan : Aadps4447A Appellant Respondent

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271

…the department are concerned with the business with whom the assessee has entered into transaction for purchase of the property, we are not convinced with the said explanation. The assessee has relied upon the decision of Andaman Timber Industry vs CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC) where the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross examine the witness whose statements were relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice which results in serious flaw thereby rendering the order a nullity. The present case in hand has identical facts of the above said decision wherei…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 510/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…n of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the ITAT wherein the entire addition was deleted a…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 509/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…n of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the ITAT wherein the entire addition was deleted a…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 508/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…n of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the ITAT wherein the entire addition was deleted a…

Varsha Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the three appeals filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes for all the years under consideration

ITA 507/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariita Nos.507 To 510/Bang/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 To 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, D.R
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…n of Calcutta High Court is at variance with decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Hence Calcutta High Court decision cannot be relied on. 5.5 The ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries (281 CTR 241) though reference has been made in page 50 para 23 of the Calcutta High Court , the Calcutta High Court has not discussed the binding ratio of the above decisions and has charted a ratio different from that of the Hon’ble Supreme court. 5.6 The Calcutta High Court was considering the decision of the ITAT wherein the entire addition was deleted a…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 379/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…d under section144 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the decision is of no rescue to assessee. 6.9. We are conscious of principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE, Kolkata-II, reported in (2015) 127 DTR 241, in support of his contention as well as decision of Hon’ble High Courts relied by the Ld.AR. All these decisions lay down that, without opportunity of cross-examination, statements cannot be relied upon against any asessee. However, such right, as held in various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not an absolute right and depends on circums…

Dinesh Kumar Singhi, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for A

ITA 378/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Smt. G.P
Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 68Section 69C

…d under section144 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the decision is of no rescue to assessee. 6.9. We are conscious of principle laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE, Kolkata-II, reported in (2015) 127 DTR 241, in support of his contention as well as decision of Hon’ble High Courts relied by the Ld.AR. All these decisions lay down that, without opportunity of cross-examination, statements cannot be relied upon against any asessee. However, such right, as held in various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not an absolute right and depends on circums…

Alpa Udaykumar Shah, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 391/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Darshan GandhiFor Respondent: 08/06/2022
Section 10(38)Section 131(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘C’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 391/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Alpa Udaykumar Shah बनाम/ The Income Tax Officer 201, Siddhchakra Flats, Ward 1(2) Vs. Blood Bank Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Krishnanagar, Bhavnagar - Nakubaug, Bhavnagar 364001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : BFLPS7506A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Darshan Gandhi, Advocate Shri V.…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 273/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2010-11) Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ G-5, Pariseema Complex, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C. Circle-2(1)(1), G. Road, Ahmedabad - Ahmedabad - 380015 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG6992L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh…

Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1074/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

For Appellant: Shri Aseem Thakkar, A.RFor Respondent: 01/08/2022
Section 131Section 133Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ ‘D’ अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1074/Ahd/2016 & 273/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2010-11) Gold Finch Jewellery Ltd. The Dy. Commissioner of बनाम/ G-5, Pariseema Complex, Income Tax Vs. Nr. Swagat Cross Roads, C. Circle-2(1)(1), G. Road, Ahmedabad - Ahmedabad - 380015 380006 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACG6992L .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant by : Sh…

Shri Abhishek Gupta, Indore vs. ITO-5(5), Indore

In the result, this appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 74/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…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 Page 14 of 27 Shri Abhishek Gupta Assessment year 2014-15 violation of principles of natu…

The ITO, Ward-1(3)(4), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Nileshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 55/AHD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Deelip Kumar, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kshatriya, A.R
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…

Measage Bhai Industries Private Limited, Moga vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Moga

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 358/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir SehgalFor Respondent: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…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. 358/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Bhai Industries Pvt. Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd., 7th Mile Stone, Moga Ward-1, Moga Ludhiana G.T. Road, Moga [PAN: AABCB 5965B] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Respondent by: Sh. S. M. Surendranath, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 06.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 11.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, A.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 12.03.2019 passe…

DCIT 33(2), Mumbai vs. Shri. Maheshprasad Nagaraja Kalsapura, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 3111/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143

…ITA No. 3111/Mum/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 8 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘D’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod Kumar (Vice President)] and Sandeep S Karhail (Judicial Member)] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax- 33(2) Mumbai ….…………………. Appellant Vs. Maheshprasad Nagaraja Kalsapura …………………….. Respondent 501, Evershine Jewel, 15th Road, Khar (W), Mumbai 400052 [PAN: APEPK1699C] Appearances: None for the appellant T. Shankar for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : May 04, 2022 Date of pronouncement the order : August 03, 2022 O R D E R Per Pramod Kumar, VP:…

Santosh Mahalingam, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Tarvinder Singh Kapoor & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Santosh Mahalingam, Vs Acit, No.1, Santosh Nagar, Pratap Central Circle-6, Vihar, Ghaziabad-201009. New Delhi. Pan-Cjkps5766C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit. Dr Date Of Hearing 30.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2022

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

…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 recd. share ca…

Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 582/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…eport of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector. We note that no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee. For that, reliance is placed on the judgment of Andaman Timber Industries, 281 CTR 241 (SC). The Learned Counsel also contended that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted a lot of case law, favoring to the assessee, however, ld CIT(A) did not take into consideration these case law (precedent) while adjudicating the assessee`s appeal. 13. We note that rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and a…

B.G.Jain Investment Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (in ITA No

ITA 44/SRT/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 44/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) B. G. Jain Investment Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(1), 202, Shyam Apartment, In Kakadia Surat. Complex Lane, Opp. Kakadia Complex, Above Dr. Pokhran’S Clinic, Ghod Dod Road, Surat-395007. E-Mail: Dbjain@Nakodaltd.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8848A आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 582/Srt/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Nakoda Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(1)(4), 401, 4Th Floor, Union Trade Centre, Surat. Beside Apple Hospital, Udhna Darwaja, Ring Road, Surat-395002. E-Mail: Dbjain@Gmail.Com (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacn7281K Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri H. P. Meena, Cit(Dr) 26/07/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Different Assessees, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Surat [In Short “The Ld. Cit(A)”] Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”).

Section 143(3)

…eport of the Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation Wing), Mumbai and the report of the inspector. We note that no opportunity to cross examine has been provided to the assessee. For that, reliance is placed on the judgment of Andaman Timber Industries, 281 CTR 241 (SC). The Learned Counsel also contended that during the appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted a lot of case law, favoring to the assessee, however, ld CIT(A) did not take into consideration these case law (precedent) while adjudicating the assessee`s appeal. 13. We note that rules of natural justice are rooted in all legal systems and a…

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 348/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel
Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…ith the department but lies with the assessee who allegedly made purchases in his books of accounts from the said concerns.” 6.14 Further it is to be noted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it was held that opportunity of cross-examination not given, leads to nullity and ITA Nos.108, 109, 203, 204 & 348/Bang/2012 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 24 of 71 assessment order to be quashed. It is also pertinent to mention herein the decision of Special Bench of the Tribunal in ACIT v. Vireet Investments (P…