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 367,181 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

Shri Gopal Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO Sendhwa, Sendhwa

ITA 246/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…us is no way connected with such Investigation Wing of Kolkata neither any opportunity of cross-examination has been rendered to the assessee. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported in, 281 CTR 241 (SC) in this regard. No documentary proof has been provided by the Revenue to show that cash was given by the appellant for obtaining cheques on account of sale of shares and therefore, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the exempt long- term capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by the assessee 6 Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/I…

Govardhan Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO Sendhwa, Sendhwa

ITA 245/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…us is no way connected with such Investigation Wing of Kolkata neither any opportunity of cross-examination has been rendered to the assessee. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported in, 281 CTR 241 (SC) in this regard. No documentary proof has been provided by the Revenue to show that cash was given by the appellant for obtaining cheques on account of sale of shares and therefore, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the exempt long- term capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by the assessee 6 Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/I…

Ajay Kumar Balmukund Jhawar HUF, Sendhwa vs. ITO Sendhwa, Sendhwa

ITA 244/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…eus is no way connected with such Investigation Wing of Kolkata neither any opportunity of cross-examination has been rendered to the assessee. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported in, 281 CTR 241 (SC) in this regard. No documentary proof has been provided by the Revenue to show that cash was given by the appellant for obtaining cheques on account of sale of shares and therefore, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the exempt long-term capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by 5 M/s Ajay Kumar Balmukund Jhawar-HUF ITA No.244,…

Shri Vrindavan Tayal, Sendhwa vs. The ITO Sendhwa, Sendhwa

ITA 242/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…us is no way connected with such Investigation Wing of Kolkata neither any opportunity of cross-examination has been rendered to the assessee. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported in, 281 CTR 241 (SC) in this regard. No documentary proof has been provided by the Revenue to show that cash was given by the appellant for obtaining cheques on account of sale of shares and therefore, in the absence of any evidence contrary to the exempt long- term capital gain as claimed under Section 10(38) by the assessee 6 Shri Vrindavan Tayal ITA No.242/I…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur (Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 731/ASR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…s not amount to confronting the assessee with the proposed addition. This contention is supported by Instruction no. 20 of 2015 issued by CBDT as well as the decision of Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported at 127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addi…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur ( Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 730/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…s not amount to confronting the assessee with the proposed addition. This contention is supported by Instruction no. 20 of 2015 issued by CBDT as well as the decision of Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported at 127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addi…

Shrimati Jatinder Kaur(Alias Amrita), Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 728/ASR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 153ASection 56(1)(vii)Section 68

…s not amount to confronting the assessee with the proposed addition. This contention is supported by Instruction no. 20 of 2015 issued by CBDT as well as the decision of Supreme Court in the case of in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE reported at 127 DTR 241 and also in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda reported at 101 CCH 277. Copy of the decisions is enclosed at page no. 51A to 51N. The addition made is thus bad in law on this score also and deserves to be deleted. Necessary relief may please be allowed. 2. The third ground of appeal is that the learned assessing officer has erred in making an addi…

Pratap Bajaj, Indore vs. ITO-4(1) Indore, Indore

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

ITA 489/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…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…

Manorama Devi Sharma, Indore vs. ITO-3(1), Indore

In the result, appeals of the assessee(s) namely Smt

ITA 39/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bbn Transportation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6176/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2008-09
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Sur Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeals are dismissed in favour of the

ITA 6174/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jul 2021AY 2009-10
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE, SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst.CIT M/s Sur Buildcon Central Circle-13, Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi. Vs. 315, 3rd Floor E-Block International Trade Tower, Nehru Place New Delhi. PAN-AALCF 7467F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.258/Del/2015 Arising out of ITA No.6174/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/s Sur Buildcon Pvt. Dy. CIT Ltd. Central Circle-13, 315, 3rd Floor Vs. New Delhi. E-Block Internati…

Mohanlal Khandelwal, Indore vs. The ITO-4(1), Indore

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 8/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…t be primary evidence or material to nail the assessee and simply based on the statement no addition can be made. This has been held so by various courts, and also by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 17 case of M/s Andaman Tiimber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: “According to us, 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…

Radheshyam Khandelwal, Indore vs. ACIT4(1), Indore

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 7/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…t be primary evidence or material to nail the assessee and simply based on the statement no addition can be made. This has been held so by various courts, and also by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 17 case of M/s Andaman Tiimber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: “According to us, 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…

Smt. Rukmani Khandelwal, Indore vs. ITO-4(3), Indore

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 30/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…t be primary evidence or material to nail the assessee and simply based on the statement no addition can be made. This has been held so by various courts, and also by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 17 case of M/s Andaman Tiimber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: “According to us, 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…

Shri Suresh Khandelwal, Indore vs. The ITO-4(1), Indore

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 29/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…t be primary evidence or material to nail the assessee and simply based on the statement no addition can be made. This has been held so by various courts, and also by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 17 case of M/s Andaman Tiimber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: “According to us, 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…

Smt. Sandhya Khandelwal, Indore vs. ITO 4(3), Indore

In the result, all the captioned appeals filed by different

ITA 113/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

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

…t be primary evidence or material to nail the assessee and simply based on the statement no addition can be made. This has been held so by various courts, and also by Hon’ble Apex Court in the 17 case of M/s Andaman Tiimber Industries vs. CCE (SC) reported in 127 DTR 241 has held as follows: “According to us, 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…

ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Lakhi Gems, Jaipur

In the result, ground of appeal taken by the Revenue as well as that of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1306/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘B’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1306/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Assistant Commissioner of Income M/s Lakhi Gems, 295, 2nd floor, Hanuman Ji Vs. Tax, Central Circle-03, Jaipur ka Rasta, Johari Bazar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAAFL5913D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 04/JP/2020 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy…

ACIT Central Circle 3(2), Chennai vs. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 1985/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1985/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & Co No.: 155/Chny/2017 (In Ita No.1985/Chny/2017) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Cmg Steels Pvt. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. No.8, Elanthanur, Central Circle – 3(2), Ponneri High Road, Chennai – 34. Chennai – 600 103. Pan: Aadcc 7579C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) राज" की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S. Bharath, Cit "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri T. Banusekar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 25.03.2021 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2021

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Bharath, CIT
Section 153CSection 68

…t recorded satisfaction as required u/s.153C of the Act. 7.1 As regards, addition made towards unsecured loans, the ld.CIT(A) by following various judicial precedents including decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 held that the AO was erred in making addition towards unsecured loans on the basis of third party information without providing an opportunity of cross examination and also evidences collected from third parties in violation of principles of natural justice. The ld.CIT(A) further held that the assessee has discharged its onus by filing various de…

M/S.Neminath Mumbai Shelter, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 2554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: S/shri G.N Makwana & Sushil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…tes-cum-employees is in flagrant violation of the basic tenets of the principle of natural justice. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). In the said case it was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the basis for passing the impugned order by the Adjudicating Authority amounted to a serious flaw, which being in violation of the principles of natural justice rendered the said order as nullit…

Smt. Mamta Nyati Dhamnod Distt. Dhar, Dhamnod vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 488/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

…अपील"य अ"धकरण, इ"दौर "यायपीठ, इ"दौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND HON'BLE MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati ITO, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 to Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AJPPN2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, ITO, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.AAPPN8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam ITO, Dhar Nyati, HUF बनाम/ 5 Nyati Hou…