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 367,336 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

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…roceeded with the assessment taking adverse view of the material which remained unconfronted with and without providing opportunity of cross-examination of the persons making statements such additions cannot be sustained:- (i) Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC); (ii) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CTT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 322 ITR 396 (Delhi); (iv) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd 288 ITR 0345 (Del); (v) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd. vs UOI 51 ITC 210 (SC); (vi) Tin Box Company vs CIT 116,Taxman 419 (SC); (vii) AluDwyandra Kumar Bhattacharya vs Supdt. Of Income Tax 1…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…appellant and thus the order of the assessment needs to be set aside as it suffers from want of application of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, reported in 127 DTR 241. 30. It is further submitted that, the AO has relied on the statements recorded from Mr. Kamal Kumar Jain. However, he officer did not provide the said statement to the appellant to rebut the evidence used against him. ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Page 17 of 32 This action of the AO is opposed to all known canons of the settled principles of…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…appellant and thus the order of the assessment needs to be set aside as it suffers from want of application of principles of natural justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, reported in 127 DTR 241. 30. It is further submitted that, the AO has relied on the statements recorded from Mr. Kamal Kumar Jain. However, he officer did not provide the said statement to the appellant to rebut the evidence used against him. ITA Nos. 1945 & 1946/Bang/2016 Page 17 of 32 This action of the AO is opposed to all known canons of the settled principles of…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(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 382/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…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 Page 16 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 381/BANG/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…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 Page 16 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is…

Sarita Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 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 380/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…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 Page 16 of 18 ITA Nos. 380 to 382/Bang/2020 various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is…

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

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3153/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Snehalatha Singhi, The Deputy Flat No. 101, Commissioner Of Pride Elite, Income Tax, No. 10, Museum Road, Circle – 1 (1)(2), Bangalore – 560 001. Vs. Bangalore. Pan: Ajmps0427Q Appellant Respondent : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija, Assessee By Advocates : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. Revenue By Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Has Been Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 10.08.2018 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-1, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under: The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income On 31/03/2015 For Year Under Consideration Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,31,57,680/-. Ld.Ao Observed That Assessee Has Claimed Exemption Under Section 10(38) Amounting To Rs.3,10,94,952/- Towards Sale Of Equity Shares. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Girija
Section 10(38)

…d under section144 of the Act. We therefore are of the opinion that the decision is of no rescue to assessee. 5.7. 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 assessee. However, such right, as held in various decisions by Hon’ble Supreme Court, is not an absolute right and depends on circum…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ance of such material / information statement. statement. Therefore, it is not permissible to draw any inference based upon such material. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE — [(2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC)] (ii). State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff[(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] (iii). Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] (iv). Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST — [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] (v). CIT v. Ashish International [ITXA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3. The assessment order is framed purely on the basis o…

M/S. Kasturi Rashi Developers, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5(3), Pune

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1961/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

Section 131Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1961/PUN/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 M/s. Kasturi Rashi Developers, ITO, Ward-5(3), 1, Adam’s Court, 2nd Floor, Vs. Pune Opp. Mahabaleshwar Hotel, Baner, Pune 411 045 PAN : AAHFK7276K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri V.L. Jain Respondent by Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing 02-03-2022 Date of pronouncement 07-03-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 30-05-2017 in relatio…

Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2465/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments & Ito, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Pan-Aabcr5971K Assessee Revenue

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…n was allowed to the assessee whose statement was the basis for making the addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE reported in 281 CTR 214 and the decision of the Delhi Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Magan Behari Lal vs DCIT in ITA No.4558/Del/2019, order dated 16.09.2019, he submitted that it has been held in these decisions that the statement recorded in the back of the assessee cannot be relied 12 upon against the assessee without giving opportunity of cros…

Shri Niranjan Dass, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (2), Bathinda

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

ITA 476/ASR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anupam K. Garg, (DR)
Section 69

…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. 476/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Niranajan Dass S/o Vs. Income Tax Officer, Munshi Ram, Ward No.2, Ward-1(2), Bhatinda Gali No.17, Raman Mandi Bhatinda. [PAN: AVWPD5878N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. P.N. Arora, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Anupam K. Garg, (DR) Date of Hearing: 28.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 02.03.2022 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 2…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.435/AHD/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V UG-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, s. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQCS 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent) Assessee by :Shri Rasesh Shah, CA Respondent by :Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 21/01/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ent Commission (1989) 176 169,174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 127 DTR 241(SC) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under: “5. We have heard Mrs. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority thou…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ent Commission (1989) 176 169,174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 127 DTR 241(SC) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under: “5. We have heard Mrs. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority thou…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ent Commission (1989) 176 169,174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 127 DTR 241(SC) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under: “5. We have heard Mrs. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority thou…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ent Commission (1989) 176 169,174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 127 DTR 241(SC) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under: “5. We have heard Mrs. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority thou…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ent Commission (1989) 176 169,174 (SC) held that any order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity. As regards the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 127 DTR 241(SC) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under: “5. We have heard Mrs. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel who appeared for the Revenue. 6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross- examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority thou…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata vs. Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitors Trust

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/312/2017HC Calcutta16 Feb 2022

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

For Appellant: Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 12ASection 133ASection 260ASection 80G

…Form No.(J2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA SPECIAL JURISDICTION (INCOME TAX) ORIGINAL SIDE Present : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE T.S. SIVAGNANAM A N D THE HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA IA NO.GA/1/2017 (Old No.GA/2864/2017) ITAT/312/2017 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION) KOLKATA -Versus- MAYAPUR DHAM PILGRIM AND VISITORS TRUST For the Appellant: Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, Adv. For the Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ananda Sen, Adv. Heard on : 16.02.2022 Judgment on : 16.02.2022 T. S. SIVAG…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Raipur vs. Smt. Rachna Devi Sadhwani L/H of Late Shri Kalyan Das Sadhwani, Raipur

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost

ITA 15/BIL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur03 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D. Battullआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 15/Blpr/2012 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2003-2004

For Appellant: None for the assesseeFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 253(2)Section 54FSection 68

…ed any independent enquiries, therefore following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Smt Krishan Devi (ITA No 130/2020) and conjunctly upon the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC), we do not find any merits in the assessment order. 13. Considering the entire conspectus of case, we find no virtues in the assessment order; consequently there remained no iota of doubt in upholding the order of Ld CIT(A) with no infirmity. 14. Resultantly, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, with no order as to cost. Order pronounce…

Sunrise Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1321/JPR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Choudhary (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…lied the copy of the statement and is allowed an opportunity to cross-examine. In support of this contention, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II —281 CTR 241. It is reiterated that the appellant-society is fully charitable and its aim is to provide education to village children whose parents are very financially week and mainly poor farmers, villagers and does not exists for profit. All the receipts of tuition fee/bus fee are properly accounted for in the books of account and nothing is concealed. No…