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 366,339 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

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 261/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 260/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Sh Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 259/IND/2021[2014--15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 258/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 257/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT Central Range, Bhopal

ITA 256/IND/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT -Range, Bhopal

ITA 255/IND/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl.CIT -Range, Bhopal

ITA 254/IND/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Add.CIT Range -Bhopal, Bhopal

ITA 253/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

M/S Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Gwalior vs. Addl. CIT, Gwalior

ITA 252/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 271DSection 271E

…non for using the material found in his possession against assessee. Reliance is placed on following decisions: (a) M/s Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (b) M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC) (c) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. The State of Maharastra and Ors. 2013 AIR 58 (SC) (d) CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 3 TMI 1610 (SC) (iii) It is submitted that if the AO believed that the assessee had taken loans from different persons, the AO should have made enquiries from those very persons. Moreover, it was legally incumbent upon t…

Manoj Kumar Chandrama, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 191/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay JaiswalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash Singh
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69B

…based on sale value as per the email, however, there is no evidence available on record as to between whom this email correspondence took place. 8. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2015] 314 ELT 641 (SC), has observed as under: “6. According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because o…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. NFAC, Delhi/ D.C.I.T., Circle-11(1), Kolkata

ITA 660/KOL/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. 14. Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 353 ITR 171 (Cal) 15. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC). 15. On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- received from the following persons against the issue of equity shares at f…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 650/KOL/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. 14. Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 353 ITR 171 (Cal) 15. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC). 15. On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- received from the following persons against the issue of equity shares at f…

Acme Chem Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-10(1), Kolkata

ITA 641/KOL/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…2018-19 Acme Chem Limited. 14. Decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 353 ITR 171 (Cal) 15. Decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Vs CCE [2016] 38 GSTR 117 (SC). 15. On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities. 16. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. The assessee is aggrieved to the addition made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,62,80,000/- received from the following persons against the issue of equity shares at f…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 929/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 928/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 927/CHNY/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 926/CHNY/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 925/CHNY/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…

Dr Deepak Arjundas, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for all the assessment

ITA 924/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Mar 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.924 To 929/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2011-12 To 2016-17 Dr.Deepak Arjundas, V. The Asst. Commissioner- No.228-A, Kilpauk Garden Road, Of Income Tax, Chennai-600 010. Non-Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aafpd 1050 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.S.Sundaraman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08.03.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench: This Bunch Of Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against

For Respondent: Mr.P.Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(5)Section 147Section 148Section 28

…cross examination to the assessee in violation of principles of natural justice. It is well settled principles of law by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkatta-II (15 SCC 785), where it was categorically held that not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by the adjudicating authority, though statements of those witnesses were made on the basis of impugned order is a serious flaw, which makes the order nullity, inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice, because of which the assessee…