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

Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-59(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1662/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prabhu Dayal Aggarwal, Acit, Circle- 59(1), G- 47, Preet Vihar, New Delhi. Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…has not been done. Failure to do so is fatal to the cause of the utility of the statement as an evidence. For the above proposition, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 281 CTR 241. 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta reported in 303 ITR 95, he submitted that the reassessment proceedings were held to be invalid and unsustainable on account of the statement not being cross-checked through cross-examination. He submitted that the satisfaction as to the esc…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…less offered their cross examination to assessee herein to justify the allegations leveled in detailed reasons recorded which would in my opinion make the reopening as invalid (refer Apex court leading decision in case of Andaman Timber Industries reported at 127 DTR 241 order dated 02/09/2015 and Bombay high court decision in case of H.R.Mehta reported at 387 ITR 561) This violation of natural justice in my view is a serious flaw and goes to the root of the matter and nullifies the entire proceedings. 5.2 Be that as it may, once assesseee places all the reliable and trustworthy documentary evidences to support t…

Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kol., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 286/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2006-07 M/S. Alloy Steel Emporium Pvt. Ltd..................................………………………………….Appellant 10, Clive Row, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aacca 5738 N] Ito, Ward 4(3) Kolkata...................…………………………………………….....................Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.C. Mondal, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 29, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 20, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 17, Kolkata Dated 10.06.2016 & Grounds Raised Therein Read As Under: “1. That The Assessment Order Dated 04.03.2014 Framed U/S 147/143(3) Is Void & Nullity In The Eyes Of Law As There Are No Recorded Reasons To Belief That The Income Chargeable To Tax Escaped Assessment. 2. That Without Prejudice To Ground No 1 Stated Above, The Recorded Reasons Are Invalid & Improper & As Such, The Assessment Framed Vide Order Dated 04.03.2014 Is Bad In Law In The Eye Of Law. 3. That The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 30,66,273/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Bogus Purchase.”

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…me has not been adversely commented upon by Shri Vikash Agarwal and the AO simply have disbelieved the evidences furnished by the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transactions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 214 (SC) has reiterated that without cross-examining a third party, the statement given by such third party cannot be used adversely against the assessee. Moreover, we note that in this case, the sales shown by the assessee of the very same goods that has been found to be bogus and disallowed by the Assessing Officer, has been accepted by him as corr…

Prakash B. Thakur, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years

ITA 1765/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri G.P. Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR)
Section 143Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Prakash B. Thakur, The Income Tax Officer-19(2)(5), C/o M/s Bhavik Metal Industries, Matru Mandir, II Floor, Room No. 3, Krishna Building, Tardeo Road, Nana Chowk, Pathe Bapurao Marg, Vs. Mumbai - 400007 Mumbai - 400004 PAN: ACTPT0016A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri G.P. Mehta (AR) Revenue by : Ms. N. Hemalatha (DR) Date of Hearing: 06/06/2018 Date of Pronouncement: 19/06/2018 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM These appea…

Franco -Indian Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT CC-2(3), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4225/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2173/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 226/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4225/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Franco Indian Pharmaceutical The Dy. Commissioner of P. Ltd. 20, Dr. E. Moses Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Vs. Road, Worli, Mumbai-…

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 226/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2173/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 226/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4225/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Franco Indian Pharmaceutical The Dy. Commissioner of P. Ltd. 20, Dr. E. Moses Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Vs. Road, Worli, Mumbai-…

Franco Indian Pharmaceutical P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT - 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, these three appeals of assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2173/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Shri Reepal Tra Ishawala, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “G” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI श्री महावीर स िंह, न्याययक दस्य एविं श्री जी. मंजुनाथ लेखा दस्य के मक्ष । BEFORE SRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM AND SRI G MANJUNATHA, AM Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 2173/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2010-11) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 226/Mum/2016 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aayakr ApIla saM./ ITA No. 4225/Mum/2017 (inaQa-arNa baYa- / Assessment Year 2012-13) Franco Indian Pharmaceutical The Dy. Commissioner of P. Ltd. 20, Dr. E. Moses Income Tax, Circle-6(2), Vs. Road, Worli, Mumbai-…

Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 2423/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO-1(3) (5) Surat/I.T.A. No.2423/Ahd/2016/A.Y.08-09 Page 1 of 38 +आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT "ी सी.एम.गग", "ाियक सद" तथा "ी ओ.पी.मीना, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.2423/Ahd/2016/SRT: Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 807, Sterling Apartment, Ward-1(3) (5), Surat. Nr. Priya Hotel, Athwalines, Surat – 395 0041. PAN: AHHPS 2944M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Respondent Shri Rasesh Shah, CA िनधा"रती की ओर से…

Atal Bihari Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 May 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Advocate)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 234B

…t the back of assessee, then the addition made by the AO based on the statement is not sustainable. In support of his contention he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, 127 DTR 241 (SC). 5.1. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has submitted that the addition was not made merely on the basis of statement of Shri Rajesh Tambi but the said statement was corroborated by the impounded material and, therefore, the AO was justified in making the addition. He has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered…

ACIT, Central Circle - 1(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Adhunik Cement Ltd., (Now Dalmia Bharat Cement), Guwahati

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicialmember)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 250

…nd Mr. Dilip Kumar Khetan. The assessee objected to the reopening which was after four years and has also sought cross-examination of these two witnesses of the revenue. He pointed out that the Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timer Industries vs. CCE (2015) 127 DTR 241, has recognised the right of the assessee to cross-examine the witness of the revenue. He took this bench through the replies given by these two witnesses of the revenue during the course of cross- examination and submitted that it is not a case of retraction. He pointed out that it was during cross examination of the revenue witness, the facts h…

Linkwise Tie-Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 12(1), Kolkata

ITA 115/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…been already taken as correct (supra). Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have supplied the assessee copy of Mr Sharma’s statement recorded on 02.07.2013 much less his cross-examination. Hon'ble apex court’s judgment in Andaman Timber vs. CIT (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) holds that such violation of principle of natural justice in absence of any exceptional circumstances renders an addition to be not sustainable. Case on record suggests that the Assessing Officer has himself treated Mr. Sharma two IT No.2416/Kol/2016 &115/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO Wd-12(1),Kol. Vs. Mega Trenchless Eng. P. Ltd. Page 4 suppli…

ITO, Ward - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Mega Trenchless Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 2416/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Saini

Section 143(3)

…been already taken as correct (supra). Neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) have supplied the assessee copy of Mr Sharma’s statement recorded on 02.07.2013 much less his cross-examination. Hon'ble apex court’s judgment in Andaman Timber vs. CIT (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) holds that such violation of principle of natural justice in absence of any exceptional circumstances renders an addition to be not sustainable. Case on record suggests that the Assessing Officer has himself treated Mr. Sharma two IT No.2416/Kol/2016 &115/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 ITO Wd-12(1),Kol. Vs. Mega Trenchless Eng. P. Ltd. Page 4 suppli…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Alook Finetrade P Ltd, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 180/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 May 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 180/JP/2015 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2005-06 cuke Income Tax Officer, M/s Alok Fintrade (P) Ltd., 411, 3rd Floor, Shalimar Complex, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jaipur. Church Road, M.I. Road, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAECA 6776 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k@C.O. No. 20/JP/2015 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.…

Heerachand Kanunga, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2787/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 10(38)Section 147

…ok Kumar Kayan cannot be considered in so far as the principles of natural justice and the opportunity to cross-examine was not provided. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 CTR 241 (SC). It was a submission that the assessee having produced all the evidences to show the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.10(38) was liable to be allowed. 7. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO & the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the Ld.CIT(A) has also enhanced the a…

Heerachand Kanunga, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 2786/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S. Jayaraman

Section 10(38)Section 147

…ok Kumar Kayan cannot be considered in so far as the principles of natural justice and the opportunity to cross-examine was not provided. The assessee relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in 281 CTR 241 (SC). It was a submission that the assessee having produced all the evidences to show the genuineness of the transaction, the assessee’s claim of exemption u/s.10(38) was liable to be allowed. 7. In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO & the Ld.CIT(A). It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the Ld.CIT(A) has also enhanced the a…

The DCIT, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Harjivanbhai Chaganbhai Patel, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2460/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2384/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs Income-Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2460/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Harjivanbhai C. Patel, C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Income-Tax, Vs Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pd. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Ahmedabad Dated 21St July, 2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…hority in this regard. The assessee has demanded the copy of the statement as well as the cross-examination of the witness which request cannot be brushed aside in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 281 CTR 241 (SC) (2015) also. The action of the Revenue Authorities thus suffers from serious irregularities while drawing conclusion adverse to the assessee. Therefore, we consider it just and expedient to restore the action of the CIT(A) partly confirming the disallowance of cost of improvement to the extent of Rs.49,49,100/- to the file of the Assessing O…

Shri Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2384/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2384/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Harjivanbhai C. Patel, Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs Income-Tax, Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2460/Ahd/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Harjivanbhai C. Patel, C/O. Mehta Lodha & Co., Income-Tax, Vs Chartered Accountants, Circle 3(2), 105, Sakar-I, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380009 Pan : Abupp 1238 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Pd. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Am: The Captioned Cross Appeals Have Been Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-3, Ahmedabad Dated 21St July, 2016 Arising In The Assessment Order Dated 27.02.2015 Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax

For Appellant: Shri PD. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajdeep Singh, Sr DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

…hority in this regard. The assessee has demanded the copy of the statement as well as the cross-examination of the witness which request cannot be brushed aside in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 281 CTR 241 (SC) (2015) also. The action of the Revenue Authorities thus suffers from serious irregularities while drawing conclusion adverse to the assessee. Therefore, we consider it just and expedient to restore the action of the CIT(A) partly confirming the disallowance of cost of improvement to the extent of Rs.49,49,100/- to the file of the Assessing O…

Shivalik Kinema Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 400/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Apr 2018AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT)
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh fot; ikWy jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 400/JP/2016 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 cuke M/s Shivalik Kinema Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Vs. E-822, Road No. 14, VKI, Circle-04 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACS6572L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) lq…

M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2521/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar 306 ITR 27 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR 241 (SC). Also in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer (SC)(1981) 131 ITR 597 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - "the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the revenue. This burden may be discharged by the reven…

M/S. Cliff Trexim Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle - 3(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2520/KOL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2519/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Garg Brothers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg 9775 F (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2520/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Cliff Treximpvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 3(2), Kolkata 57, Burtolla Street, Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, Kolkata – 700 007. Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 0961 E (Assessee) .. (Revenue) & आयकरअपीलसं/.Ita No.2521/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Span Foundation Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Ltd. 3(2), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 110, 57, Burtolla Street, Shantipally, Kolkata – 700 107. Kolkata – 700 007. "थायीलेखासं/.जीआइआरसं/.Pan/Gir No. : Aaecs 4605 C (Assessee) .. (Revenue)

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Bhoomija Verma, ARFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…this regard our attention was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. Rajesh Kumar 306 ITR 27 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR 241 (SC). Also in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer (SC)(1981) 131 ITR 597 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that - "the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the revenue. This burden may be discharged by the reven…