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 367,359 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

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Siliguri vs. Neetu Agarwal

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/3/2021HC 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 vs. Nand Kishore Agarwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/22/2021HC 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-9, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gopal Prasad Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/153/2021HC 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, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC 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 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC 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…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC 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-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC 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. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC 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…

Chouhan Builders India Housing Development P. L Td vs. Mumbai

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

ITA 4793/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalchouhan Builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 Pan: Aaccc1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit -9(2)(1), R.No. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. K. Shivram With Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent By : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date Of Hearing : 10/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13/06/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’] Vide Order Dated 31.05.2019 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit (A) 16 (Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A)) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Assessment Of The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.15,00,000/- As Against Loss Of Rs. 89,84,401.24 Returned By The Appellant. 2. Order Dt.31/05/19 Passed By Ld. Cit(A) As Well As Order Dt.27/12/18 Passed By Ld. Ao Were Bad In Law As The Same Were Not Based On Facts But Were Based On Assumptions Or Surmises Or Erroneous Findings & Has Not Considered Submissions Made By Appellant Or Authorities Cited By Appellant.

For Appellant: Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam JadhavFor Respondent: Sh. Pankaj Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chouhan builders India Housing Development P. Ltd. 104A, Sajid Tower, Amboli, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400058 PAN: AACCC1839Q ...... Appellant Vs. DCIT -9(2)(1), R.nO. 665A, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. K. Shivram with Ms. Neelam Jadhav Respondent by : Sh. Pankaj Kumar Date of hearing : 10/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 13/06/2022 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commiss…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…istently used. Also, the assessee has not made any submissions to prove that the subsequently admitted receipts of Rs.146 crores were taken through cheques or DDs.” 211. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 281 CTR 241 (SC) held as follows:- “Not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness 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 adve…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 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…

Rajeev Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes whereas the Cross Objection of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1835/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Gurnani, Proxy Counsel for Shri
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1835/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 Rajeev Gupta, v. ITO, Ward-2(2), B-9, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AHIPG7473L (Appellant) (Respondent) CO No.110/DEL/2019 (Arising out of ITA No.1835/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2015-16 ITO, Ward-2(2), v. Rajeev Gupta, Ghaziabad. B-9, Surya Nagar, Ghaziabad. TAN/PAN: AHIPG7473L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Shri S.K. Srivastav, IRS, Ms. Manjubala Yadav, Adv. Shri…

Society for Welfare Awareness Research and Guidance, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4702/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2011-12] Society for Welfare Income Tax Officer(Exemption), Awareness Research Ward-2(2), Guidance, Vs W-151, Greater Kailash-II, RZ-2705/30, New Delhi-110048 Sheel Bhawan, Main Jagdamba Road, Tughalakabad Extension, Delhi-110019 PAN-AADAS6285R Assessee Revenue Assessee by Sh. Mayank Patawari, CA Revenue by Sh. Om Prakash Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1167/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…ment of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon on the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC), PCIT Vs Kanubhai Maganlal Patel (2017) 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.), CIT Vs Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj.), H. R. Mehta vs ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 110 (Mum), ITO Vs Softline Creations (P) Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 139 (Delhi Trib.), R. W. Promotions (P.) Ltd. ACIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.), CIT Vs Ashwani Gupta…

M/S. Raj Enterprise, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Surat

ITA 1166/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…ment of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon on the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC), PCIT Vs Kanubhai Maganlal Patel (2017) 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.), CIT Vs Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj.), H. R. Mehta vs ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 110 (Mum), ITO Vs Softline Creations (P) Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 139 (Delhi Trib.), R. W. Promotions (P.) Ltd. ACIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.), CIT Vs Ashwani Gupta…

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3), Surat vs. M/S. Raj Enterprises, Surat

ITA 1164/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Saini

Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 53A

…ment of Shri Ritesh Gheewala is not admissible as evidence as no cross-examination as of Ritesh Gheewala was allowed by Assessing Officer. To support his submission, the ld. AR relied upon on the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC), PCIT Vs Kanubhai Maganlal Patel (2017) 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.), CIT Vs Indrajit Singh Suri (2013) 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj.), H. R. Mehta vs ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com 110 (Mum), ITO Vs Softline Creations (P) Ltd. (2017) 81 taxmann.com 139 (Delhi Trib.), R. W. Promotions (P.) Ltd. ACIT (2015) 61 taxmann.com 54 (Bom.), CIT Vs Ashwani Gupta…

ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 85/JP/2021 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABOPG 4893 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Asse…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “C”: DELHI. BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5064/Del./2017 Assessment Year 2009-10 The ACIT, Central M/s. KR Pulp and Papers Circle-19, Room No.104, vs., Ltd., 304, Roots Tower, ARA Centre, E-2, District Centre, Laxmi Jhandewalan, Nagar, New Delhi – 110 092 New Delhi. PAN AAACK5861C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Shri Lalit Mohan, C.A. For Assessee : Ms. Monika Aggarwal, Advocate. Date of Hearing : 03.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31.03.20…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ent of Shri Naveen Goyal was not sustainable in law particularly when no opportunity was given to cross examine. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Prakash Chand Mehta vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (M.P) • Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 CTR 241 (SC) 6.2 It was further submitted that the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 69A of the Act in the absence of any corroborative evidence even when the assessee had explained the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank account and that nowhere in the assessment order, the A.O. had mentioned that he was not satisfied with the explanati…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…ent of Shri Naveen Goyal was not sustainable in law particularly when no opportunity was given to cross examine. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Prakash Chand Mehta vs CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (M.P) • Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 CTR 241 (SC) 6.2 It was further submitted that the A.O. invoked the provisions of Section 69A of the Act in the absence of any corroborative evidence even when the assessee had explained the nature and source of cash deposits in the bank account and that nowhere in the assessment order, the A.O. had mentioned that he was not satisfied with the explanati…