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 367,164 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

Hari Ram Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 22(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2363/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment Year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal Ito, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Acdpa 1946 N]

Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Kolkata Bench, Kolkata (Bench – “B”) BEFORE SHRI ABY. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2363/Kol/2018 (Assessment year 2014-15) Hari Ram Agarwal ITO, Ward-22(4), Kolkata. -Vs- [PAN :ACDPA 1946 N] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) For the Appellant Shri M. D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT- Sr. DR. Date of Hearing 28.03.2019 Date of Pronouncement 03.04.2019 ORDER Per M. Balaganesh: This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Kolkata [ in sho…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Naveen Kumar Kajaria ACIT, Circle-35, बनाम / 32, Armenian Street, Aayakar Bhawan, V/s. Kolkata-700001 Poorva, 110, Shantipally, 7th Floor, [PAN No.AGDPK 0069 N] Kolkakta-107 Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, बनाम / 32, Armenian Street, ACIT, Circle-36, V/s. Kolkata-001 Aaykar Bhawa, Poorva 110, Shantipally, 7th [PAN No.AFYPK 7990 Q] Floor, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Sunin Surana, Advocate & आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri S.M. Surana, A…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.1254-1255/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Naveen Kumar Kajaria ACIT, Circle-35, बनाम / 32, Armenian Street, Aayakar Bhawan, V/s. Kolkata-700001 Poorva, 110, Shantipally, 7th Floor, [PAN No.AGDPK 0069 N] Kolkakta-107 Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, बनाम / 32, Armenian Street, ACIT, Circle-36, V/s. Kolkata-001 Aaykar Bhawa, Poorva 110, Shantipally, 7th [PAN No.AFYPK 7990 Q] Floor, Kolkata-107 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Sunin Surana, Advocate & आवेदक क" ओर से/By Assessee Shri S.M. Surana, A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Aangan Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…of PKJ and the investigation report. Even the statements were not provided to the assessee for its rebuttal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015 reported in 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 held as under: - “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 adverse…

Devi Singh Rawat, Beawar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2 Beawar, Rajasthan

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

ITA 318/JPR/2018[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010
For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Jain (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 131(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 318/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Devi Singh Rawat, I.T.O., Vs. H. No. 5, Chandra Villa, New Ward 2, Agarwal Colony, Delwara Road, Beawar. Beawar (Raj)-305901 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AASPR 3252 M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sanjiv Jain (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Anuradha (JCIT) lquokbZ dh r…

Shri Harbans Lal Khurana, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

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

ITA 1308/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 131(1)Section 132(4)Section 147Section 69

…tunity 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 Vinay Kumar Nagayach, Bharatpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Bharatpur

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

ITA 1320/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1273/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Dhirendra Singh, I.T.O., Vs. 5/5, Kala Kuwa Housing Board, Ward 2(1), Arawali Vihar, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANXPS 5004 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1330/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Renu Goyal, I.T.O., Vs. C/o- Sh. Krishan Kanhaiya Goyal, Ward 2…

Shri Dhirendra Singh, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Alwar

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

ITA 1273/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Anuradha (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1273/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Dhirendra Singh, I.T.O., Vs. 5/5, Kala Kuwa Housing Board, Ward 2(1), Arawali Vihar, Alwar. Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANXPS 5004 N vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1330/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10 cuke Renu Goyal, I.T.O., Vs. C/o- Sh. Krishan Kanhaiya Goyal, Ward 2…

Nicholson Vanijya Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

ITA 1856/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ested the cross examination of Shri Sunil Dokani, Shri Bidyoot Saral, Shri Narendra Basin and Shri Amit Dokani which was not provided to the assessee by the AO. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. AndamanTimber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC) the assessment based on statement without giving an opportunity to assessee to cross examine the maker of the adverse statements relied on by the AO, is not sustainable in law. We find that the statement cannot be used by the AO without giving an opportunity to cross examination of Shri Sunil Dokani, Shri Bidyoot Saral, Shri Narendra Basin an…

Alliance Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

ITA 1855/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…ested the cross examination of Shri Sunil Dokani, Shri Bidyoot Saral, Shri Narendra Basin and Shri Amit Dokani which was not provided to the assessee by the AO. Thus, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CCE vs. AndamanTimber Industries 127 DTR 241(SC) the assessment based on statement without giving an opportunity to assessee to cross examine the maker of the adverse statements relied on by the AO, is not sustainable in law. We find that the statement cannot be used by the AO without giving an opportunity to cross examination of Shri Sunil Dokani, Shri Bidyoot Saral, Shri Narendra Basin an…

Shri Sohan Nath, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

ITA 888/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…reasonable explanation for non compliance of the provisions of Section 44AB the penalty provisions of Section 271B of the Act are attracted. We fortify our view by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Shi Ram Rajaram & Party vs. CCIT 281 CTR 214 wherein the Hon’ble jurisdictional High 8 Shri Sohan Nath vs. ITO Court has considered an identical issue and has held in paras 18 to 27 as under:- “18. We have considered the rival contentions and have perused the orders passed by all the three authorities. 19. To appreciate the controversy in all the three appeals, it would be appropriate t…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4, Jaipur vs. Shri Gyandeep Khemka, Jaipur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal and cross objection of

ITA 1274/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 14A

…he back of the assessee and is being used against the assessee then the order passed by the Assessing Officer based on such statement is not sustainable in absence of cross examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amdaman Timber Industries Vs CCE 127 DTR 241, while dealing with the issue of non-grant of opportunity to cross examine the witness has held as under: “5. We have heard Mr. 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 witnesse…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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 whic…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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 whic…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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…

Kamlesh Rani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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…

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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 whic…

Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 3555/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…se of Moti Adhesives (ITA 3133/Del/2018) in order dated 25/06/2018 copy placed before us, has been consistently holding while taking support from Hon’ble Apex court leading decision in Andaman Timber Industries case (Civil Appeal No. 4228 OF 2006) reported at 127 DTR 241 that violation of principle of natural justice (here withholding of back material referred in reasons which is specifically requested for repeatedly) is a serious flaw and results in nullity of the order so passed, which is squarely applicable to present case. Be that as it may, even on merits, for the companies from where assessee recd. share ca…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…icer to defend himself by cross- examining witness produced against him is necessary for following the rules of natural justice. Further, the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timber industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) has held as under :- ―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…