Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

281 CTR 241Supreme Court of India2015#32 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE authority for?

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

1,335

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Andaman Timber Industries · cross-examination · third party information · principles of natural justice · adverse inference · retraction of statement · section 132(4) · section 143(3) · nullity of order · denial of cross-examination

Also reported as

62 Taxmann.com 3127 DTR 241324 ELT 6412015 SCC OnLine SC 1051

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 69Section 147Section 153ASection 148

Issues it is cited on

third party informationsection 65section 65bpreponderance of probabilitysection 131(1a)retracted statementsection 132(4a)on-moneysection 69bdumb documentsbogus ltcgstatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE

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

ITA 204/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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…

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

ITA 203/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

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…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 109/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

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…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 108/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…

Dev Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Astha ManiarFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 68

…ITA No.220/Ahd/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC-2” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dev Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., vs. The Income Tax Officer 503, New Cloth Market, Ward – 1(1)(4), Ahmedabad. O/o. Raipur Gate, Raipur, Ahmedabad – 380 002. [PAN – AADCD 6066 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Astha Maniar Respondent by : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 13.07.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIA…

Nishat Ara, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 65/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…never confronted to the assessees and therefore, the principles of natural justice have also been violated. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect heavily placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713,…

Zain Alam, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

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

ITA 64/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…never confronted to the assessees and therefore, the principles of natural justice have also been violated. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect heavily placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713,…

Nausheen Farah, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 63/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…never confronted to the assessees and therefore, the principles of natural justice have also been violated. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect heavily placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713,…

Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -II, Kanpur

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

ITA 62/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…never confronted to the assessees and therefore, the principles of natural justice have also been violated. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect heavily placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713,…

Marghoob Alam, Kanpur vs. Dcut, CC-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 61/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…never confronted to the assessees and therefore, the principles of natural justice have also been violated. Learned counsel for the assessee in this respect heavily placed reliance on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241. Further reliance was placed on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713,…

ACIT, Circle (Exemption ), Nagpur vs. M/S Sipna Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Amravai, Amravati

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 223/NAG/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur28 Jun 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Acit, Vs. M/S. Sipnashikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (Exemption), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati Pan No.:Aacts 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shripiyushkolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shrihimeshdemble (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A)-4, Nagpur Dated 27/03/2017 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14 Wherein The Department Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: ShriHimeshDemble (CA)For Respondent: ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR)
Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM Assessment Year: 2013-14 The ACIT, Vs. M/s. SipnaShikshan Prasarak Mandal Circle (EXEMPTION), Badnera Road Amravati Amravati PAN No.:AACTS 1266 J Appellant Respondent Revenue by :ShriPiyushKolhe (CIT-DR) Assessee by: ShriHimeshDemble (CA) Date of Hearing: 26/04/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 28/06/2022 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal has been filed by the Department against the order of the ld. CIT (A)-4, Nagpur dated 27/03/2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2013…

Shri Manoj Amar Chand Tailor, Masuda Bijainagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 910/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

…any evidence proving the allegation was provided to the assessee to defend his case. No opportunity of cross-examination was allowed to the assessee though specifically asked for by the assessee. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214(SC) held that not allowing the assessee company to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witness were made the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity. On the same issue, the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (cal)…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Beawar vs. Shri Manoj Amar Chand Tailor, Masuda Bijainagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 819/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Ms Savita Bundas (CIT)
Section 147

…any evidence proving the allegation was provided to the assessee to defend his case. No opportunity of cross-examination was allowed to the assessee though specifically asked for by the assessee. Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214(SC) held that not allowing the assessee company to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witness were made the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity. On the same issue, the Hon`ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Eastern Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (cal)…

Coastal Fertilisers Limited, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-15(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 312/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Manish Borad & Sri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250Section 68

…ial gathered by the ld. AO in the course of his enquiry during assessment is not as per law. Reliance was place on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II reported in [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC). 7. Per contra ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 8. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Though the assessee has raised five grounds of appeal on merit, but, they all relate to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 94,50,000/- made by the ld. AO alleged un…

ACIT Circle-3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 833/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…providing the copy of the same and the assessee given an opportunity to rebut the same and even cross-examining them. In this regard, we may 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 may also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon…

Chemicon Engineering Consultant Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Circle- 3 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7907/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7907/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Chemicon Engineering बिधम/ Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Room No.607, Aayakar Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 833/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Acit, Circle 3(1)(2) बिधम/ Chemicon Engineering Room No.607, Aayakar Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Vs. 21 & 22, 2Nd Floor, 230, Bhawan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. Sakhar Bhawan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc2686H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala Revenue By: Shri H. N. Singh (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/06/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Appeals Preferred By The Assessee & Revenue Respectively Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-08, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2019 For The A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Both The Parties Are As Follows: Assessee Grounds: - 1. For That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 (The “Act”) & A.Ys.2013-14 Chemicon Engineering That By The Cit(A) U/S 250 Of The Act So Far It Relates To In Confirming Of The Additions To The Extent Of A) Rs. 6,22,05,000/- Received From Certain Companies Out Of Total Rs. 13,13,50,000/- In Respect Of Shares Allotted Against Share Application Money;

For Appellant: Shri Anuj KisnadwalaFor Respondent: Shri H. N. Singh (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…providing the copy of the same and the assessee given an opportunity to rebut the same and even cross-examining them. In this regard, we may 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 may also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Asansol Kolkata vs. Rajesh Jhunjhunwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/26/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ressed into service to support the contention that on the date when the assessee had purchased the shares there was no allegation against the 44 (2008) 14 SCC 151 45 (2009) 2 SCC 192 46 (2015) 324 ELT 641 (SC) 47 (1980) Supplementary SCC 660 48 (2002) (143) ELT 25 (SC) 49 (2007) 1 SCC 781 50 (2016) 93 VST 326 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 51 of 150 company or the stock broker or any other person and therefore any investigation done subsequently cannot work prejudice to the assessee who is a genuine investor. 25. It is su…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Periwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/136/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ressed into service to support the contention that on the date when the assessee had purchased the shares there was no allegation against the 44 (2008) 14 SCC 151 45 (2009) 2 SCC 192 46 (2015) 324 ELT 641 (SC) 47 (1980) Supplementary SCC 660 48 (2002) (143) ELT 25 (SC) 49 (2007) 1 SCC 781 50 (2016) 93 VST 326 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 51 of 150 company or the stock broker or any other person and therefore any investigation done subsequently cannot work prejudice to the assessee who is a genuine investor. 25. It is su…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Siliguri vs. Sri Satya Narayan Saria

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/168/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ressed into service to support the contention that on the date when the assessee had purchased the shares there was no allegation against the 44 (2008) 14 SCC 151 45 (2009) 2 SCC 192 46 (2015) 324 ELT 641 (SC) 47 (1980) Supplementary SCC 660 48 (2002) (143) ELT 25 (SC) 49 (2007) 1 SCC 781 50 (2016) 93 VST 326 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 51 of 150 company or the stock broker or any other person and therefore any investigation done subsequently cannot work prejudice to the assessee who is a genuine investor. 25. It is su…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-5, Kolkata vs. Jemish Shah

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/57/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…ressed into service to support the contention that on the date when the assessee had purchased the shares there was no allegation against the 44 (2008) 14 SCC 151 45 (2009) 2 SCC 192 46 (2015) 324 ELT 641 (SC) 47 (1980) Supplementary SCC 660 48 (2002) (143) ELT 25 (SC) 49 (2007) 1 SCC 781 50 (2016) 93 VST 326 ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 51 of 150 company or the stock broker or any other person and therefore any investigation done subsequently cannot work prejudice to the assessee who is a genuine investor. 25. It is su…