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

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Panvel, Maharashtra vs. The DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Maharashtra

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1996/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 and Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, 20, Hari Mahal Complex, Panvel Section 5/A, Plot No.43/44/45, New Panvel, Raigad-410206 Maharashtra PAN : ABTPP1851A Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at…

Pandurang Keshav Pandit, New Panvel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Panvel Circle

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2614/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2614/Pun/2024 & Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 5Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2614/PUN/2024 and Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pandurang Keshav Pandit, Vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, 20, Hari Mahal Complex, Panvel Section 5/A, Plot No.43/44/45, New Panvel, Raigad-410206 Maharashtra PAN : ABTPP1851A Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Respondent by : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date of hearing : 08.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.12.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeals at…

Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shweta Manish Jain, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

…ssessing Officer did not confront the assessee with any specific document, bank entry, ledger extract, or statement forming the foundation of the alleged accommodation entry. The settled legal position, as reiterated in Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC), is that denial of cross-examination of third-party statements relied upon by the revenue vitiates the assessment. The law on this issue is well settled that third-party loose sheets, unsigned digital data or uncorroborated documents cannot be used as evidence against an assessee unless supported by independent evidence, and unless the asses…

Bhavana Vikram Jain, Mumbai vs. Central Circle - 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6365/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6363/MUM/2025 ITA No.6364/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) (Assessment Year 2018-19) Bhavana Vikram Jain, 1202 Disha Residency, 12th Khetwadi Back Road, Girgaon Mumbai – 400004 ............... Appellant PAN: APRPJ7536E v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 04/12/2025 Date of Order - 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER S…

Bhavana Vikram Jain, Mumbai vs. Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6364/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6363/MUM/2025 ITA No.6364/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) (Assessment Year 2018-19) Bhavana Vikram Jain, 1202 Disha Residency, 12th Khetwadi Back Road, Girgaon Mumbai – 400004 ............... Appellant PAN: APRPJ7536E v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 04/12/2025 Date of Order - 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER S…

Bhavana Vikram Jain, Mumbai vs. Central Circle - 4(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 6363/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 250Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.6363/MUM/2025 ITA No.6364/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) (Assessment Year 2018-19) Bhavana Vikram Jain, 1202 Disha Residency, 12th Khetwadi Back Road, Girgaon Mumbai – 400004 ............... Appellant PAN: APRPJ7536E v/s Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-4(2), ……………… Respondent Mumbai Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Revenue by : Shri Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 04/12/2025 Date of Order - 10/12/2025 O R D E R PER S…

Mr. Mohan Mathew, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ncw-4(4), Coimbatore

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

ITA 2074/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2074/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Sharavanan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

…he material and was not given an opportunity to cross-examine the person from whom the Department has taken a statement. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Andman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata – II reported in (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) had held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in breach of principles of natural justice and held that is a serious flaw which renders the :- 7 -: order a nullity. It is clear from the impugned order of FAA, addition has been made only on the circumstantial evidence w…

Nandkishore Telefilms & Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2563/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…of the main witness Mr. Vipul Bhatt on whosestatement's basis addition was made, Ld. AR relied on various decision of ITAT and Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II 281 CTR 241 (SC) alongwith 5 other cases referred in the case of Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal in ITA No. 6301/Mum/2017 order dated 05.12.2019 wherein it was held that once a statement given on oath is retracted, AO has to examine that person again and if that is not done, he cannot rely on original statement made by that person. iii) It was also argued tha…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…re the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Copy enclosed at PB Page-56. Without giving an opportunity of cross examination, addition is not sustainable. The assessee relies on the following judgements on the identical issue. A) The Honourable Supreme Court, (2015)281 CTR 214/ 127 DTR 241 (SC) in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE; B) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v.CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) C) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi Vs. Odeon…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…re the Ld. CIT(Appeals). Copy enclosed at PB Page-56. Without giving an opportunity of cross examination, addition is not sustainable. The assessee relies on the following judgements on the identical issue. A) The Honourable Supreme Court, (2015)281 CTR 214/ 127 DTR 241 (SC) in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE; B) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v.CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) C) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi Vs. Odeon…

Rak Magnum Realty LLP, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 4411/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SMT. RENU JAUHRI (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 4411/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 RAK MAGNUM REALTY LLP Vs. Income Tax Officer – C.S. No. 12/50, Tawri Pada 20(3)(1), Mumbai Dr. S.S. Rao Road Lalbaug Mumbai - 400012 [PAN: AAMFA9943L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Nishit Gandhi, A/R Respondent by Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. A/R Date of Hearing 20.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 02.12.2025 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by the assessee arise out of order dated 03/07/2024 pas…

Cosmos Engitech Private Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1466/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Tr Senthil Kumarcosmos Engitech Private Ltd., The Assistant Vs. Plot No.85/2, Cosmos House, Commissioner Padra Road, Atladara, Of Income Tax, Vadodara-380015. Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara. [Pan :Aaacc7647 J] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Tej Shah, Ar Respondent By: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.11.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

For Appellant: Shri Tej Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…250. 5. In ground no. 6 the appellant is claiming that opportunity of cross examination was not provided to it. The appellant is placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE(SC) (2015) 281 CTR 241 (2015) 127 DTR 241. In the instant case the Investigation was conducted to examine the affairs of M/s Arvindo Institute of Applied Scientific Research Trust. During the course of such investigation the Assessing Officer thereof examined the chief trustee who confessed that the said trust was providing entries to various entities for claiming bogu…

Vijaya Prakash Nagori, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 32(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3392/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Om Prakash Kantvijaya Prakash Nagori Vs. Ito, Ward, 32(2)(1) 409/C, Abhar Jp Road, Kautilya Bhawan, C-41- Seven Bungalows, Andhere 43, Avenue, 3, Near (W), Mumbai – 400 061. Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc Pan/Gir No. Aekpr2943H (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263oSection 68

…asking for cross examination, assessee is trying to shift the burden of proof on the department. Thus, assessee’s request in this regard is not acceptable. 30. Hon'ble Supreme Court decision 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’. 31. We also like placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1819/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…AO's case, but it is seen that, these statements were not tested by affording the assessee opportunity of cross-examination which considerably diminishes their evidentiary value and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in violation of natural justice and such omission is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We are also conscious of the fact that, the old bottle suppliers were not found to be shell entities or accommodation entry…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1818/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…AO's case, but it is seen that, these statements were not tested by affording the assessee opportunity of cross-examination which considerably diminishes their evidentiary value and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in violation of natural justice and such omission is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We are also conscious of the fact that, the old bottle suppliers were not found to be shell entities or accommodation entry…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Southern Agrifurane Industries Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 1817/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. C. Yamuna, CIT &
Section 132Section 139Section 153CSection 250

…dentiary value diminishes their evidentiary value and the Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015 e Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015 e Hon’ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon examine witnesses whose statements are…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1552/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…AO's case, but it is seen that, these statements were not tested by affording the assessee opportunity of cross-examination which considerably diminishes their evidentiary value and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in violation of natural justice and such omission is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We are also conscious of the fact that, the old bottle suppliers were not found to be shell entities or accommodation entry…

Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

ITA 1550/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1817 To 1819/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. V. M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai - 600 004. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.1550 To 1552/Chny/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष/Assessment Years: 2020-21 To 2022-23 M/S. Southern Agrifurane Industries Pvt. Ltd., Mgm Centre No.1, 9Th Cross Street, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004. [Pan: Aagcs 9705 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Department By Assessee By सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement V. The Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mrs. C. Yamuna, Cit & Mr. Bipin, Cit : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate : 08.10.2025 : 21.11.2025 ::2 ::

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…AO's case, but it is seen that, these statements were not tested by affording the assessee opportunity of cross-examination which considerably diminishes their evidentiary value and the Hon'ble Apex Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE [2015] 127 DTR 241/281 CTR 241 (SC) held that failure to give the assessee the right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon results in violation of natural justice and such omission is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. We are also conscious of the fact that, the old bottle suppliers were not found to be shell entities or accommodation entry…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…ITA Nos. 2207 & 2208/DEL/2025 M/S LS CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S LS CONTRACTORS DCIT, PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.AABCL8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri M P Rastogi, Advocate & Shri Shivam Malik,…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…ITA Nos. 2207 & 2208/DEL/2025 M/S LS CONTRACTORS PVT. LTD. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S LS CONTRACTORS DCIT, PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. ARA Centre, PAN No.AABCL8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Assessee by Shri M P Rastogi, Advocate & Shri Shivam Malik,…