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 367,154 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

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (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…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (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…

Ambey Construction Company, Bathinda vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/ASR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. S. Saini & Sh. N. K. Choudhryita No. 121/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ambey Construction Company, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of #21605, Street No. 7, Power House Income Tax, Circle-1, Road, Bathinda Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aanfa7199K

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh GuptaFor Respondent: Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 68

…ct that the AO relied on his statement to make uncalled for addition . The action of the CIT(A) is in complete violation of principles of natural justice and binding judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries as reported in 281 CTR 241. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law while directing the AO to assess the work contract receipts amounting to Rs. 15,00,00,000/-, assessed by the AO as income from other sources, as deemed income u/s 68. The explanation furnished during the course of assessment proceedings has been ignored summarily. 6. Notwithstanding the above grounds of…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), 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 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…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…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Naseem Saad, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 208/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY : 2014-15 NAZIA ZAFAR, vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAIPZ25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NASEEM ZAFAR vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAAPZ2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 vs. NASEEM SAAD ITO, WARD 46(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AARPS3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 KAMRAN NASEEM,…

Naseem Zafar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 207/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY : 2014-15 NAZIA ZAFAR, vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAIPZ25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NASEEM ZAFAR vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAAPZ2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 vs. NASEEM SAAD ITO, WARD 46(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AARPS3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 KAMRAN NASEEM,…

Nazia Zafar, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(3), New Delhi

In the result, all the 04 appeals of all the above assessee are partly

ITA 8093/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay : 2014-15 Nazia Zafar, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaipz25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Naseem Zafar Vs. Ito, Ward 46(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaapz2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Vs. Naseem Saad Ito, Ward 46(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aarps3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AY : 2014-15 NAZIA ZAFAR, vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAIPZ25398) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 NASEEM ZAFAR vs. ITO, WARD 46(3), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AAAPZ2495G) (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 vs. NASEEM SAAD ITO, WARD 46(5), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI (PAN: AARPS3364A (Appellant) (Respondent) AY: 2015-16 KAMRAN NASEEM,…

Daya Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7806/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Amitabh Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 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…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4883/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…148 of the income tax act. c. He further stated that the assessing officer was also requested for the cross-examination of these parties however same was denied. He therefore submitted that as held by the honourable Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timbers [281 CTR 472] any addition made without granting an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses who statements have been used by the assessing officer for making an addition is invalid. He therefore submitted that this additions deserves to be deleted on all these counts. 10. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4882/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…148 of the income tax act. c. He further stated that the assessing officer was also requested for the cross-examination of these parties however same was denied. He therefore submitted that as held by the honourable Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timbers [281 CTR 472] any addition made without granting an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses who statements have been used by the assessing officer for making an addition is invalid. He therefore submitted that this additions deserves to be deleted on all these counts. 10. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the…

Ram Niwas Gupta, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4881/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Chary

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR
Section 143Section 153ASection 69B

…148 of the income tax act. c. He further stated that the assessing officer was also requested for the cross-examination of these parties however same was denied. He therefore submitted that as held by the honourable Supreme Court in case of Anadaman Timbers [281 CTR 472] any addition made without granting an opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses who statements have been used by the assessing officer for making an addition is invalid. He therefore submitted that this additions deserves to be deleted on all these counts. 10. The learned departmental representative vehemently supported the order of the…

DCIT, Circle-2, Meerut vs. Reeta Singhal, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4819/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. S. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year 2010-11 Dcit, Circle-2, Vs Reeta Singhal, Meerut. A-312, Prahlad Vatika, Khair Nagar, Meerut. Pan : Abtps 0061P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Sharma, Sr.D.RFor Respondent: S/Shri Raj Kumar & Shri

…amination, it is necessary for the A.O. to facilitate for the cross-examination in the absence of which, such alleged adverse material cannot be used. This legal preposition stands laid down by Hon'ble Supreme in the case of M/s. Andaman Timber Industries, 281 CTR 241 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as that "Denial of opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements were made the sole basis of the assessment is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice". 4.5 Ld. CIT(A) also observed that he found sub…

L.K. Prahladka, HUF, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(3), Kolkata

ITA 317/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 68

…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…

M/S Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…" ITO Vs Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ (Pune) TM 300 " Paul Mathews and Sons Vs CIT 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) " CIT Vs Khader Khan Son 300 ITR 157 (Madras) " Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 0713 (SC) " Andaman Timber Industries Vs Commissioner of Central Excise 127 DTR 241 " Sh. Ashok Kumar Bhailal Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 562 & 591/Ahd.2015 ITA No. 181/Asr./2017 9 Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd. 7. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee observed that the AO noted during the course of search on Sh. Sanjay Chaudhary Group that the said group was engaged in providing accommodation entries to…

Santoshsingh Hukumsingh Karnawat, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 23/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.23 /Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Santosh Singh Hukum Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnawat, Prop. Shilpa Exports, 402, Ward- 2(3)(8) Surat Parmukh Darshan Apartment, Rampara Main Road Opp. Patidar Bhawan Mahidharpura, Surat - 395 003. [Pan: Arapk 9181 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143

…/Ahd/2017/A.Y.:12-13 Page 6 of 10 statement of Shri Bhanwarlal M. Jain amounts to serious flaw and makes assessment impugned order nullity as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241(SC). During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO has called for information under section 133(6) from the above two parties who have duly complied with, hence, said parties cannot be said as bogus concerns. The learned counsel for the assessee relying on the decision of Hon`ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT v. M K Brothers [1987]…

ACIT, Circle-33(1) vs. Alps International

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4709/DEL/2003[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2001-02 Acit, Vs. M/S. Alps International, Circle-33(1), New Delhi 16/11, Iind Floor, R.D. Chamber, Karol Bagh, New Delhi Pan :Aaafa5155A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv.; Ms. Deepashree Rao, Ca; & Sh. Vibhu Gupta, Ca

Section 40A(3)Section 69BSection 80H

…rence could be drawn on the basis of ex-parte statements of persons, who were not allowed to be cross-examined (refer objection filed at pages 58- 59 before the assessing officer), as held in the following decisions: - CIT V. Andaman Timber Industries V. CCE: 281 CTR 241 (SC) - CIT vs. M/s Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd: 295 ITR 105 (Del) - CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta: 191 Taxman 51 (Del) - CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Limited: 288 ITR 345 (Del) - In view of the aforesaid, the addition on account of alleged deficit stock made by the assessing officer is erroneous and rightly deleted by the CIT(A). - Further, disallowance made…

Smt. Dipika Shroff, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

ITA 1198/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68

…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…