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 Mukesh Choudhary, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Jodhpur

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 573/JODH/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma(Assessment Year-2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 7

…unity of cross examination amount to violation of principle of natural justice, a serious flaw which makes the order null and void. 11. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 wherein it was held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which made impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The precise observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court…

Shri Jitendra Ojha, Sirohi vs. ITO, Sirohi

In the result appeal of assessee is allowed in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 484/JODH/2018[Shri Jitendra Ojha ]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Accountant Mrmber Shri Jiterndra Ojha Vs The Ito, S/O Sh. Mangi Lal Ojha , Sirohi. Chhoti Brahmpuri, Sirohi.

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(1)Section 149Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…unity of cross examination amount to violation of principle of natural justice, a serious flaw which makes the order null and void. 11. For this purpose, reliance can be placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 wherein it was held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which made impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. The precise observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 930/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.929 & 930/Del/2019 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nimbus (India) Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o RRA TAXINDIA, Central Circle, D-28, South Extension, Part I, Noida. New Delhi. PAN : AABCN6610K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri R.P. Basi, CA Revenue by : Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM:- The above two ap…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 929/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.929 & 930/Del/2019 Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Nimbus (India) Ltd., Vs DCIT, C/o RRA TAXINDIA, Central Circle, D-28, South Extension, Part I, Noida. New Delhi. PAN : AABCN6610K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate, Shri Somil Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri R.P. Basi, CA Revenue by : Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 09.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 10.02.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM:- The above two ap…

M/S. Rameshwar Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 768/AHD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms Madhumita Royअपील सं./Ita No.768/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 M/S.Rameshwar Developers, D.C.I.T., Shyamvedstatus, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. Ahmedabad Behind Yash Avenue, Ioc Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, A.R
Section 131(1)(d)Section 143Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER अपील सं./ITA No.768/Ahd/2018 & "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2013-2014 M/s.Rameshwar Developers, D.C.I.T., Shyamvedstatus, Central Circle-1(4), Vs. Ahmedabad Behind Yash Avenue, IOC Road, Chandkheda, Ahmedabad. PAN: AAMFR6704J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee by : Shri P.B. Parmar, A.R : Revenue by Shri N.K. Goyal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 20/01/2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 30/01/2020 आदेश/O R D E R PER…

Venkata Satya Surya Sree Ranganadha Raju Alluri, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2070/HYD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Jan 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Blevenkata Satya Surya Sree Vs. Ito, Ward-14(1), Ranganadha Raju Alluri, Hyderabad. Plot No. 226, R.No. 78, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Pan No. Axxpa 0703 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas – ARFor Respondent: Shri Kiran Katta – Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 292C

…of the college who gave statement u/sec. 132(4) of the Act. For that, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme (Venkata Satya Surya Sree Ranganadha Raju Alluri) Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC)] and submitted that addition cannot be survived. 5. Ld.DR submitted that addition is made on the basis of seized material, therefore no interference is warranted. 6. I have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. 7. There is a search and seizure carried on in the…

M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1228/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) M/s SPML Infra Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata 22, Camac Street, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 2469 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1211/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s SPML Infra Ltd. 22, Camac Street, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 2469 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ap…

DCIT, Circle - 8(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Spml Infra Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1211/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Lata Goyal, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.GODARA, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1228/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2011-12) M/s SPML Infra Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata 22, Camac Street, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 2469 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No.1211/Kol/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) DCIT, Circle-8(2), Kolkata Vs. M/s SPML Infra Ltd. 22, Camac Street, Block-A, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700016 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADCS 2469 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Ap…

Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 8066/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “A”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.8066/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Behat Holdings Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, 14, 4380/4B Murari Lal vs., Ward-4(3), Room No.385A, Street, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, Central Delhi C.R. Building, PIN - 110 002. New Delhi. PAN AADCB7691L (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A. Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate, For Assessee : Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.A. For Revenue : Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 08.01.2020 Da…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

…mar Jain is in itself a 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 for violation of the principles of natural justice rendered the said order as null…

Charbuja Marmo (India) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Pr.CIT- 2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 4749/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “B” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.4749/Del./2019 Assessment Year 2010-2011 M/s. Charbhuja Marmo The Principal (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi – 110 015. Commissioner of Income PAN AADCC5143L vs C/o. Shri Kapil Goel, Tax – 2, Room No.394, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, C.R. Building, New Delhi. Delhi – 110 085. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate For Revenue : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 17.12.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 ORD…

Jigar Veljibhai Sheta, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 1418/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1418/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jigar Veljibhai Sheta, V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), 606, Lalbhai Contractor Surat. Complex, Nanpura, Nr Parsi Library, Surat-395 001. [Pan: Buqps 9374 E] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah – Ar राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

Section 69B

…to allow cross-examination of the party to the assessee. Therefore, no addition can be sustained in the light of decision in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). The ld. counsel further reliance in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CIT (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it was held 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 Jigar Veljibhai Sheta v. ITO…

Late Vithaldas Khusaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee partly allowed

ITA 629/AHD/2017[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1998-99

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.629/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1998-99 Late Shri Vithaldas Khushaldas बनाम Deputy Commissioner Of Mali, L/H Hasmukhbhai Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Vs. Vithaldas Mali Navsari Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Bazar, Navsari [Pan: Abopm 3924 E] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.12.2019 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O. P. Meena Am: 1. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Valsad, (In Short “The Cit (A)”) All Dated 03.02.2017 For The Assessment Year 1998-99 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Navsari Circle- Navsari (Hereinafter Referred As “The Ao”). 2. Ground No.(I) & Ground No. (Ii) Regarding Reopening Of Assessment & Validity Of Assessment Is Not Pressed Before Us, Hence, Is Dismissed As Not Pressed.

…d the buyers whose affidavits were filed before him sellers. Therefore, the addition is not tenable in law as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II [2015] 13 STD 805 (SC) [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority, though statements of those witnesses were made basis of impugned order, amounted to serious flaw which makes impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is made without brin…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2127/AHD/2014[1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1997-98

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…d the buyers whose affidavits were filed before him sellers. Therefore, the addition is not tenable in law as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II [2015] 13 STD 805 (SC) [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority, though statements of those witnesses were made basis of impugned order, amounted to serious flaw which makes impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is made without brin…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2125/AHD/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…d the buyers whose affidavits were filed before him sellers. Therefore, the addition is not tenable in law as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II [2015] 13 STD 805 (SC) [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority, though statements of those witnesses were made basis of impugned order, amounted to serious flaw which makes impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is made without brin…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 2123/AHD/2014[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…d the buyers whose affidavits were filed before him sellers. Therefore, the addition is not tenable in law as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II [2015] 13 STD 805 (SC) [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority, though statements of those witnesses were made basis of impugned order, amounted to serious flaw which makes impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is made without brin…

Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Na

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1637/AHD/2014[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Dec 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meena, Accoutant Member आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.1637,2123,2125,2127/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:1994-95,1995-96,1996-97 & 1997-98 Shri Ratilal Khushaldas Mali, Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम Opp. Hanuman Temple, Mota Income Tax, Navsari Vs. Bazar, Navsari Circle- Navsari Pan: [Adbpm 3081 F] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Hiren R. Vepari, Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Mrs. Anupama Singla, Sr.(Dr) सुनवाई क" तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 04.12.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On 11.12.2019

Section 143Section 147Section 254

…d the buyers whose affidavits were filed before him sellers. Therefore, the addition is not tenable in law as held by the Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise Kolkata-II [2015] 13 STD 805 (SC) [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC), wherein it was held that not allowing the assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority, though statements of those witnesses were made basis of impugned order, amounted to serious flaw which makes impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the addition is made without brin…

Surinder Kumar & Sons HUF, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 890/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri B.R.R Kumar

For Appellant: Shri V. Raj Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 68Section 68oSection 69Section 69A

…Trading and Industrial Co. Ltd., (2015) 378 ITR 351 (Del.) ii) Chhugamal Raj Pal vs. ITO, (1971) 79 ITR 603 . iii) CIT vs. Atul Jain, (2009) 299 ITR 383 (Del.) iv) CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta (2008) 303 ITR 95 (Del.) v) Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) vi) CIT vs. Sunita Dhada in SLP(C) Diary No.9432/2018 dated 28.03.2018. vii) ACIT vs. Dhariya Construction Co., (2010) 328 ITR 515 (SC). viii) PCIT vs. G&G Pharma India Ltd. (Del) (ix) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (x) CIT vs. Paramjit Kaur (2009) 311 ITR 38 (P&H) (xi) CIT vs. SFIL Stock Broking Ltd., (2010) 325 ITR 285 (Del.) 9…

Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1212/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Dec 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.1212/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, A-2, Atithi Bungalow, Revaba Bharuch Town Ship, Bharuch-392001 [Pan: Aespp 7558 L] अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee By Shri Shailesh J. Shah, Ca राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue By Smt. Anupama Singhla, Sr. Dr

Section 68Section 69

…was proposed. Reliance was place on the decision of the case of Liayakat Ibrahim Shaikh v. ITO [2018], TaxPub(DT) 1469 (Mum-Trib.). The ld. counsel further place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) to contend that the assessee was not allowed to cross-examination of the lenders, hence the addition made by the AO is not sustainable. The ld. counsel further filed a chart giving details which was also filed before the lower authorities in which the aforesaid loans Ms. Shilpa Mayank Parikh v. ITO, Ward-1, Bharuch/ITA No.1212/AHD/2015 /A.…

Income Tax Officer 15(1)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Celebrity Lifespace Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15)

For Appellant: SinghFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…on’ble ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court relied on by the assessee on the ground of not allowing cross examination of parties whose statement AO is relying on particularly the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries V. CIT, 281 CTR 241 along with following decisions. 1. H.R. Metha Vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bom HC) 2. C Vasantlal & co. Vs. CIT, 45 ITR 206 (SC) 3. Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. Ashish International, ITA No. 4299 of 2009. 5. CIT Vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Bom) 6.3 It was contented by Ld. AR that in the statement of Shri Vipul Vid…