Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 115BBE, Section 143(3), Section 131, Section 68, Section 69A, Section 139.

Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise

Q: How many judgments cite Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise?

13 judgments on BharatTax cite Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise (281 CTR 211), spanning 2018 to 2025.

281 CTR 211Supreme Court of India2015#8369 most cited

What is Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise authority for?

Adjudicating authorities cannot rely on witness statements as the basis for an order without allowing the assessee to cross-examine those witnesses. Failure to do so constitutes a violation of natural justice and renders the order a nullity.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Andman Timber Ind · cross examination · natural justice · violation of natural justice · nullity of order · witness statements · adverse effect on assessee · adjudicating authority · principle of natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBE Section 143(3)Section 131 Section 68 Section 69A Section 139 Section 144 Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

retracted statement colourable device on-money block period addition under section 68 section 127 section 131 loose papers unexplained expenditure share application money documents seized section 115bb

Judgments citing Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

ITA 521/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, \nvk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21\n\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\n395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside\nSanganeri Gate, Jaipur\ncuke\nVs.\nACIT,\nCentral Circle-2,\nJaipur\nLFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M\nvihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent\n\nvk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025\nfu/k Zkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16\

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…atements are allowed to be cross-examined. Case-laws in support are quoted as under : (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which 49 ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 Sunil Kumar Agarwal makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural just…

Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Cen. Cir-2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 513/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr-DR

Section 132Section 139Section 153ASection 234B

…atements are allowed to be cross-examined. Case-laws in support are quoted as under : (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. (ii) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BIJU PATNAIK HIGH COURT OF ORISSA 190 ITR…

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…this case. As such additions could not have been made on the basis of statements of Shri Rajesh Agarwal. Therefore the additions deserves to be deleted. The following case laws are quoted in support. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross 22 Geeta Devi Agarwal vs. ITO examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those…

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

Kailash Chand Maheshwari, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

ITA 1463/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR

Section 127Section 132Section 133ASection 144Section 153ASection 57Section 68Section 69C

…The Hon’ble Court set aside the orders of the High Court and Tribunal and remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (7) Andman Timber Ind Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. The Hon'ble Court held that “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness 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…

Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. DCIT Central Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1192/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…assessment proceedings being in violation of ITA No. 1149 & 1192/JPR/2024 Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad 88 principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed. The following case laws are quoted below. i. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the…

Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Jaipur vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that

ITA 1149/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR

Section 131Section 153CSection 250

…assessment proceedings being in violation of ITA No. 1149 & 1192/JPR/2024 Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad 89 principle of natural justice deserves to be quashed. The following case laws are quoted below. i. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). "not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the…

Deepak Kumar Shah, Ramganjmandi vs. Income Tax Officer, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 426/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 131Section 68

…ing case laws are quoted in support :- 11 DEEPAK KUMAR SHAH VS ITO, WARD – KOTA, KOTA 1. The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness 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 in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.…

Sumit Goel, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result,the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 56Section 68Section 69C

…the assessee. The following case laws are in support of contention of the assessee - (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness 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 in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.…

DCIT, Circle-4, Jaipur vs. M/S Kandoi Metal Powders Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 244/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ngs. The same deserves to be quashed. The following case laws are quoted in support:- (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness 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 in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.…

Rajesh Kumar Khandelwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 14/JPR/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur16 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

For Appellant: None (Written Submission)For Respondent: Shri Manoj Mehar (CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…dditions have been made arbitrarily. The following case laws are quoted in support: - (i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). "not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.…

DCIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Jugal Kishore Garg(Derewala), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 34/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ambrish Bedi, CIT- DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 143(3)

…rious flaw and makes the order nullity. The following case laws are quoted in support: -N The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). "not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness 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 in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected.…

Choice Buildestate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, ground no.2 taken by the assessee company is allowed

ITA 431/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Mar 2018AY 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri S. L. Poddar &For Respondent: Shri Ran Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 132(4)Section 139(2)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…tted before the Learned Assessing officer are available on paper book page no.209 to 219. The Apex court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the M/s Choice Buildestate Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of natural just…