Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

15 SCC 785Supreme Court of India2016#1245 most cited

What is Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise authority for?

An assessment order is invalid if it relies on statements of third-party witnesses without granting the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine them, as this constitutes a fundamental breach of natural justice. No addition can be sustained if based solely on un-cross-examined statements.

91

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Andaman Timber Industries v CCE · cross-examination right · natural justice violation · reliance on third-party statements · invalid assessment · section 143(3) · section 68 · section 69C · bogus purchase · un-cross-examined statements

Also reported as

38 GSTR 117314 ELT 641

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 143(3)Section 68Section 132Section 10(38)Section 131Section 148Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 282a(1)section 65asection 282apenalty under section 271dsection 269tsection 140aretraction of statementsection 269spurposive interpretationbogus long term capital gainreal income theorysection 271e

Judgments citing Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise

M/S. PEARL TRACOM PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1), , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1201/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Apr 2026AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 3(1) C/O M/S Salarpuriajajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3Rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9934G Assessee By : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.04.2026

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM M/s Pearl Tracom Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle 3(1) C/o M/s SalarpuriaJajodia& Co.7, Aaykar Bhawan, P-7, C.R. Avenue, 3rd Floor, Chworinghee Square, Kolkata- Vs. Kolkata-700072, West Bengal 700069, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AABCP9934G Assessee by : Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR Date of hearing: 02.04.2026 Date of pronouncement: 02.04.2026 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/44/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…ross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785, the Tribunal has held that there is a serious flaw, which makes the order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-e…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI PAWAN GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/45/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…ross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785, the Tribunal has held that there is a serious flaw, which makes the order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-e…

THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. SHRI RAJ RAJESHWARI GUPTA,

The appeals are dismissed

ITA/46/2025HC Rajasthan24 Mar 2026

Bench: SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA,SHUBHA MEHTA

Section 68

…ross-examine the person before using the statements against the assessee. 3. Relying on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II, reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785, the Tribunal has held that there is a serious flaw, which makes the order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. The Rajsthan High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Sanjay Chhabra (D.B. ITA No.22/2021) noted that prejudice is caused to assessee when material used against him is not provided and opportunity of cross-e…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. INDIAN HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 3907/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 [Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20] DCIT, Central Circle-20, vs Indian Hydro Electric Room No.269A, 2nd Floor Power Pvt. Ltd. E-2, ARA Centre 921A, 9th Floor, Devika Jhandewalan Extension Towers, Nehru Place New Delhi-110055. Delhi-110019. PAN-AADCT7087J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Date of Hearing 20.08.2025…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20, DELHI vs. INDIAN HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER PVT. LTD., DELHI

ITA 3906/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

…ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.3906 & 3907/Del/2023 [Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2019-20] DCIT, Central Circle-20, vs Indian Hydro Electric Room No.269A, 2nd Floor Power Pvt. Ltd. E-2, ARA Centre 921A, 9th Floor, Devika Jhandewalan Extension Towers, Nehru Place New Delhi-110055. Delhi-110019. PAN-AADCT7087J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Revenue by Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR Assessee by Shri Gaurav Jain, Adv. & Shri Tarun Chanana, Adv Date of Hearing 20.08.2025…

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 7(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA vs. MASTER CHAIN PVT. LTD., MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5397/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Oct 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor a/w Ms. SoumyaFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…violation of the principles of natural justice. The right to cross-examine witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the revenue is a fundamental safeguard recognized in several judicial pronouncements, including: Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [(2016) 38 GSTR 117 (SC)], CIT v. Odeon Builders Pvt. Ltd. [(2019) 418 ITR 315 (SC)], and PCIT (Central) v. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. [(2022) 143 taxmann.com 371 (SC)]. These judgments categorically hold that any order passed without granting an opportunity for cross-examination of third-party witnesses constitutes a serious breach of natural justice, rendering the…

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED, MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4593/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…from Mahaveer Steel cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, w…

DCIT CC 5-1, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED , MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4591/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…from Mahaveer Steel cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, w…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

Appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 4584/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

…avita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross- examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the department. We further fail to understand as to why the…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

ITA 4582/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Shri K Shivram Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph, CIT DR
Section 250Section 69C

…ita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance\ncan be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross-\nexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015]\n62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well\nas other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P.\nLtd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors.\n(2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be\nmade / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by\nthe department. We further fail to understand as to wh…

DCIT CC 5 1 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. JAGDISHKUMAR M GUPTA , MUMBAI

ITA 4581/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23
Section 250Section 69C

…ita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance\ncan be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross-\nexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015]\n62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well\nas other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P.\nLtd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors.\n(2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be\nmade / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by\nthe department. We further fail to understand as to wh…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4153/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…from Mahaveer Steel cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, w…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4151/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…from Mahaveer Steel cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, w…

J KUMAR INFRAPROJECTS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

The Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and that of the department is dismissed

ITA 4150/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 250Section 69A

…from Mahaveer Steel cannot be accepted and no reliance can be placed on the statement of third parties once cross-examination is not given as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE – [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well as other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of CIT vs. Sunita Dhadda & Ors. (2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be made / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by the 218 J Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. department. In fact, w…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4112/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20
Section 250Section 69C

…ita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance\ncan be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross-\nexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015]\n62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well\nas other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P.\nLtd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors.\n(2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be\nmade / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by\nthe department. We further fail to understand as to wh…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4111/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2021-22
Section 250Section 69C

…ita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance\ncan be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross-\nexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015]\n62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well\nas other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P.\nLtd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors.\n(2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be\nmade / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by\nthe department. We further fail to understand as to wh…

JAGDISHKUMAR MADANLAL GUPTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -5(1), MUMBAI

ITA 4110/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2025AY 2022-23
Section 250Section 69C

…ita Enterprises cannot be accepted and no reliance\ncan be placed on the statement of Shri Paras Vora once cross-\nexamination is not given as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in\nthe case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE [2015]\n62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) as well\nas other decisions in the case of CIT v. Odeon Builders P.\nLtd. 418 ITR 315 and by Hon'ble High Court of\nRajasthan in the case of CIT vs. SunitaDhadda&Ors.\n(2018) 406 ITR 0220 (Raj.) – holding that no addition can be\nmade / sustained where cross examination is not allowed by\nthe department. We further fail to understand as to wh…

MANISH K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 986/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

JASMIN K AJMERA ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CC 2(2) , MUMBAI

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

ITA 984/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…rson from whose possession document was found. Thus, without cross examination, such documents loses its evidentiary value in view of the judgment and principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries reported in (2016) 15 SCC 785 and catena of other judgments which has been given before us. 33. One very important point which has been raised by the ld. DR before us that there are series of SEBI orders in respect of scrip of PLI. With respect to three SEBI orders referred by the ld. DR before us, analysis of all these orders has been filed before us by the ld. Counsel. From…

Showing 1–20 of 91 · Page 1 of 5

Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (15 SCC 785) — Cited in 91 Judgments | BharatTax