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.

How many judgments cite Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE?

1,335 judgments on BharatTax cite Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153C, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 69, Section 147.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (281 CTR 241)

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020 Bharat Solanki, 9th floor, Flat No. 903, Darshan Height, Ram Mandir Chirabzar, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41-43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearin…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 to 2019-2020 Bharat Solanki, 9th floor, Flat No. 903, Darshan Height, Ram Mandir Chirabzar, Mumbai-400 002. Vs. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41-43, Avenue 3, Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051. PAN NO. HHAPS 5899 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bharat Kumar Revenue by : Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearin…

Mishra Ganesha Ram, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5556/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

…hose statements were relied upon by the revenue which resulted in `breach of principles of natural justice'. In this regard, reliance is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that 'failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity'. 20. In the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Builders Pvt. ltd. (418ITR 315), it was held that the 'addition/d…

Mishra Ganesha Ram, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirlcle, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5552/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar

Section 153C

…the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in cross e…

Manish Kashiprasad Seksaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5501/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar

Section 153C

…e is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the…

Manish Kashiprasad Seksaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5500/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar

Section 153C

…e is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the…

Manish Kashiprasad Seksaria, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5499/MUM/2025[20187-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Bharat Kumar

Section 153C

…e is being placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015)281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the opportunity to it has been held that ‘failure to give the assessee the…

Dy.CIT Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwarjka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2355/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that, failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy.C.I, T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2353/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that, failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy.C.I.T. Cent. Cir -6(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B.Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross

ITA 2352/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that, failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Dy C.I.T. Cent Cir -6(2), `Mumbai vs. Shri Ashok B. Jiwrajka, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed and the cross objections filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am

For Appellant: Shri. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Shri. Surendra Mohan (SR-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…disadvantage of the assessee, since it would be fragile for violation of the principles of natural justice. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) wherein it has been held that, failure to give the assessee the opportunity to cross examine witness, whose statements are relied upon, results in breach of principles of Natural Justice. It is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We also gainfully refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. Odeon Buil…

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5059/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

…made unless the assessee is put to notice about such adverse materials and allowing cross examination of the parties whose statement is root cause of saidaddition. Reliance relied in this regard is placed upon the decision in case of Andman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC) 10. It is also important to mention here that unsigned excel sheet was neither found at the premises of the Assessee nor he was author of these sheets. Therefore, no presumption u/s 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C be drawn and even there is no direct link between the entries in the said excel sheet and the assessee, even Shailesh Desai had not taken th…

Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 5058/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

…made unless the assessee is put to notice about such adverse materials and allowing cross examination of the parties whose statement is root cause of saidaddition. Reliance relied in this regard is placed upon the decision in case of Andman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC) 10. It is also important to mention here that unsigned excel sheet was neither found at the premises of the Assessee nor he was author of these sheets. Therefore, no presumption u/s 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C be drawn and even there is no direct link between the entries in the said excel sheet and the assessee, even Shailesh Desai had not taken th…

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD), Central Circle 2(1), Mumbai vs. Jugalkishore Banarasilal Saraf, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2431/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantjoint Commissioner Of Vs. Jugalkishore Income Tax (Osd), Central Banarasilal Saraf Circle 2(1), Mumbai 12-A, Saraf House, 802, 8Th Floor, Pratistha Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Bhavan, C.G.O. Building, Society, N.M.Road, Maharashi Karve Road, J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Mumbai- 400020 Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) & Jugalkishore Banarasilal Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Saraf Income Tax (Osd), Central 12-A, Saraf House, Circle 2(1), Mumbai Hatkesh Co-Op. Hsg. Room No. 802, 8Th Floor, Society, N.M.Road, Pratistha Bhavan, Old Cgo J.V.P.D Scheme, Vile Annexe, Maharashi Karve Parle, Mumbai- 400056 Road, Mumbai- 400020 Pan/Gir No. Anrps9847D (Applicant) (Respondent) Shri. Himanshu Gandhi Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.-Dr.

Section 132Section 250Section 694Section 69A

…made unless the assessee is put to notice about such adverse materials and allowing cross examination of the parties whose statement is root cause of saidaddition. Reliance relied in this regard is placed upon the decision in case of Andman Timber Industries 281 CTR 241 (SC) 10. It is also important to mention here that unsigned excel sheet was neither found at the premises of the Assessee nor he was author of these sheets. Therefore, no presumption u/s 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C be drawn and even there is no direct link between the entries in the said excel sheet and the assessee, even Shailesh Desai had not taken th…