Andaman Timber Industries v. CEC

281 ITR 241Reported decision#13967 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2025 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 69A Section 69C Section 132 Section 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)loose papers documents seized unexplained expenditure section 69c income-tax officer section 132(4)assistant commissioner section 69a section 132 section 69 incriminating material

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. CEC

DCIT, CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RAJARAMPURI MOTIPURI GOSAVI, THANE

In the result, all the grounds of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3858/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankardeputy Commissioner Of V/S. Rajarampuri Motipuri Income Tax, Central Circle – बनाम Gosavi 6(1) 1002 Steppes Vasant Lawns, Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, Pokharan Road No. 2, Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Eastern Express Highway, Kurla Complex, Bandra Subhash Nagar, Thane – 400 (East), Mumbai – 400 051, 601, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abjpg2425M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Subodh Ratnaparkhi,ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, (Sr. AR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ithout verifying and making any further efforts, and this approach by the Ld. AO is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. On this aspect, we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CEC reported in 281 ITR 241 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, by not providing opportunity of cross-examining the witness whose statements were relied on by the assessing officer, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. We refer to the following observation by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: " According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examin…

ACIT CC-6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. VINAYKUMAR SUDHAKAR DESHPANDE, SOLAPUR, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the ground of appeal and consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6278/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Vinaykumar Sudhakar Income Tax, Central Circle- 6(1) बनाम Deshpande Room No. 445, 4Th Floor, 528, Deshpande Lane, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra Near Bank Sangola, (East), Mumbai – 400 051, Solapur – 413 307, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpd0198H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh,ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…approach by the Ld. AO is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. On this aspect, we refer to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. P a g e | 22 A.Y. 2021-22 Vinaykumar Sudhakar Deshpande CEC reported in 281 ITR 241 wherein, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, by not providing opportunity of cross-examining the witness whose statements were relied on by the assessing officer, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. We refer to the following observation by Hon’ble Supreme Court as under: “ According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examin…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RAJENDRA SAWALERAM RAHANE , SANGAMNER, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5668/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…g and making any further efforts, and this approach by the ld. Assessing Officer is in clear violation of principles of natural justice. On this aspect, we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CEC reported in 281 ITR 241 wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, by not providing opportunity of cross-examining, the witness whose statements were relied on by the assessing officer, amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 8.4. Once the assessee disputed the correctness of the statement and wanted to cross-examine the witness which was denied, ld. Asse…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. RANJIT RAJARAM HANDE, SOLAPUR

In the result, appeals filed by Revenue in case of both the assessees are dismissed

ITA 5621/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant Modi and Ms. Ketki Rajeshike, CAsFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BILASPUR vs. MS MAYURA SARIA PVT. LTD., BILASPUR

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…rd party, Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments: 24 DCIT, Bilaspur Vs. M/s Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd.  PCIT Vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. (143 taxmann.com 371 SC)  Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC)  Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (281 ITR 241 SC) 13. After the aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the issue raised by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority has been elaborately deliberated upon and considering the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues appreciating the facts of the case in correct perspective, therefore, the arbitrary addition…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. ATUL BHIKARAM CHAVAN, AURANGABAD

In the result appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5666/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.5663/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai Vs. Atul Bhikaram Room No. 445, 4th Floor, Chavan BKC, Mumbai-400051 127 Kingaon Fulambari Aurangabad Padali Bo Jalna Maharashtra-431111 PAN:AAWPC9721A (Appellant) (Respondent) & I.T.A. No.5666/Mum/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 ACIT CC-6(1), Mumbai Vs. Ajaykumar Baburao Room No. 445, 4th Floor, Bhosale BKC, Mumbai-400051 Bilwadal Police Colony Safal Plot No. 63, Savedi Ahmed Nagar Maharashtra-41…

ACIT CC -6(1), MUMBAI, BKC, MUMBAI vs. AJAYKUMAR BABURAO BHOSALE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5663/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 132Section 148Section 69C