Andman Timber Ind v. Commission of Central Excise

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

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\

…ents are allowed to be cross-examined.\nCase-laws in support are quoted as under :\n(i) The Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a\nserious flaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of\nCentral Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross\nexamine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those\nwitnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which\n\n49\nITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025\nSunil Kumar Agarwal\nmakes the order nullity in as much as it amounted to violation of principle of\nnatu…

SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CEN. CIR-2, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

…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

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 /

…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, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…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…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…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\nrevenue stands dismissed

…sment proceedings being in violation of\nITA No. 1149 & 1192/JPR/2024\nShri Pradeep Kumar Dusad\n88\nprinciple of natural justice deserves to be quashed. The following case laws\nare quoted below.\ni. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211\n(SC).\nThe Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious\nflaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of\nCentral Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). “not allowing the assessee to cross\nexamine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of\nthose witnesses were made the basis o…

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR DUSAD, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that\nrevenue stands dismissed

…ent proceedings being in violation of\n\nITA No. 1149 & 1192/JPR/2024\nShri Pradeep Kumar Dusad\n89\nprinciple of natural justice deserves to be quashed. The following case laws\nare quoted below.\ni. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211\n(SC).\nThe Apex Court has observed that not allowing cross examination is a serious\nflaw and makes the order nullity. Andman Timber Ind. Vs. Commission of\nCentral Excise (2015) 281 CTR 211 (SC). \"not allowing the assessee to cross\nexamine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of\nthose witnesses were made the basis…

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

Bench: Hearing.

…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

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

…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

…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

…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

…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

…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…