CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises

210 ITR 103High Court1994#440 most cited

What is CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises authority for?

If the Assessing Officer relies on adverse evidence or witness testimony, including statements recorded under Section 132(4), the assessee must be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witness or source of the evidence, upholding principles of natural justice. An assessment made without such an opportunity may be considered invalid.

205

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,459 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises · 210 ITR 103 · Section 132(4) · right to cross-examination · natural justice · adverse evidence · retracted statement · assessment validity · opportunity to examine witness · third party information · Calcutta High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153ASection 147Section 132(4)Section 132Section 148Section 68

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementthird party informationsection 158bbassistant directorstatement under section 132(4)section 34section 153c(1)retracted statementsection 292csection 132(4a)price rigging

Judgments citing CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Kolkata vs. Murlidhar Ratanlal Exports Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the COs of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2179/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan &For Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…the Hon'ble High Court held that if the loan taken during the year are repaid even in the subsequent years, then no addition is called for u/s 68 of the Act. The ld. CIT (A) also relied on the decision in the case of CIT v. Stern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 201 ITR 105 (Cal.) and held that no adverse filing can be made against the assessee on the basis of statement of the third party without allowing any cross examination to the assessee to examine the person on whose statement the reliance was placed. 017. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the ass…

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

…vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;i qj U;k;ihB] t;i qj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; d s le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 fu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21 Sunil Kumar Agarwal 395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur cuke Vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur LFkk;h y s[kk l a-@thvkb Zvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M vihykFkhZ@Appellant i zR;Fkh Z@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 513 & 519 to 521/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2018-19 to 2020-21 cuke Sunil Kumar Agarwal ACIT, Vs. 395, Narnoli Mansion, Outside Central Circle-2, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABRPA9601M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITSS No. 03/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ficer should have provided to the assessee material used against him apart from providing him an opportunity to cross examine deponents whose statements were relied upon. 60. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Kol HC) has held as follows: “As a matter of fact, the right to cross-examination a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross- examination is one of the cornerstones of natural justice”. 61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 (2015…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ficer should have provided to the assessee material used against him apart from providing him an opportunity to cross examine deponents whose statements were relied upon. 60. The Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Kol HC) has held as follows: “As a matter of fact, the right to cross-examination a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross- examination is one of the cornerstones of natural justice”. 61. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 (2015…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Pooja Kedia, Jaipuir

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1321/JPR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Aug 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Sh. Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148ASection 68

…r a statement recorded from a third party or loose papers seized from a third party. In all such cases, it is imperative to afford an opportunity to the assessee to cross-examine the said third party." Similarly in CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103, the Hon'ble Calcutta High court held that "Cross-examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party is put on notice of the case made out against him. He must be supplied the contents of all such evidence, both oral and documentary, so that he can prepare to me…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 450/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal Income Tax Officer, Vs. heir Smt. Geeta Devi Ward- 1(4), Jaipur G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 450/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal Income Tax Officer, Vs. heir Smt. Geeta Devi Ward- 1(4), Jaipur G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…e. As such, besides non-furnishing of the reasons for re-opening there was also a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The reassessment was not valid.” 216. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises, 210 ITR 103 (Cal) held as follows:- “8. We have considered the contesting contentions of the parties. It is true that Shri Shukla has proved to be a shifty person as a witness. At the earlier stages, he claimed all his sales to be genuine but before the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, he disowned the sales specifically made to the assessee. Th…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…e. As such, besides non-furnishing of the reasons for re-opening there was also a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The reassessment was not valid.” 216. The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises, 210 ITR 103 (Cal) held as follows:- “8. We have considered the contesting contentions of the parties. It is true that Shri Shukla has proved to be a shifty person as a witness. At the earlier stages, he claimed all his sales to be genuine but before the Assessing Officer in the case of the assessee, he disowned the sales specifically made to the assessee. Th…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 1463 to 1465/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2015-16 to 2017-18 cuke Kailash Chand Maheshwari DCIT, Vs. 223 Kirti Nagar, Near Kamal and Central Circle-02, Company Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AKQPM5593A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S. L.…

ACIT, Circlle-34, Kolkata vs. Subhas Kumar Kedia, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1677/KOL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1677/Kol/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Acit, Circle-34, Kolkata Vs Subhas Kumar Kedia, 41, N.S.Road, Kolkata Pan No. :Afnpk 9669 M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Ms. Shreya Loyalka, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri P.N.Barnwal, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 05.06.2024, Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- I) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order U/S.148A(D) & All Subsequent Proceedings. Ii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Failed To Acknowledge The Fact That The Assesse Had Not Expressed Any Grievance Against The Validity Of Order U/S 148A(D) By Moving Any Writ Petition Which Should Have Been Done In Case Of Any Grievance After Getting The Sald Order U/S.148A(D). Iii) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac, Delhi, Erred In Quashing The Order When The Ld. Cit(A) Has No Jurisdiction To Deal With The Question Whether The 148A(D) Order Was Passed Validly Or Properly As An Order U/S.148A(D) Is Not An Appealable Order Before Ld. Cit(A) As Per Section 246A.

For Appellant: Ms. Shreya Loyalka, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.N.Barnwal, CIT-DR
Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 246ASection 3Section 69A

…s the proceedings as invalid. Gee Bee Nirman Co Pvt Ltd. v. ITO in MAT 1667 of 2023 with IA No. CAN 1 of 2023, Dineshkumar Chhaganbhai Nandani v. ITO 153 taamann.com 187, CT. DM Joshi, [1999] 239 ITR 315 (Gujrat), CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises, (1954) 210 ITR 103 (Kolkata), Mahes Gulbrai Joshi v. CIT, (2005) 95 ITD 300 (Mumbai)(SMC), Sona Electric Co. v. СІТ. (1984) 19 Такman 160 (Delhi) to proper opportunity of being heard The show cause notice proposing variations has been signed on 19 May 2023 at 22:41 hours and with no working days in between, the response has been sought Say 22 May 2023 by 16:30 hour…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,o a Jh jkBkMs deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1149/JPR/2024 fu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ITO Ward-1(4), Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad R-1. Behind Motor Aids Petrol Pump, Jhotwara Road, Shashtri Nagar, Jaiapur. LFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABLPD4678H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;Fkh Z@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1192/JPR/2024 fu/k Zkj.k…

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

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,o a Jh jkBkMs deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1149/JPR/2024 fu/k Zkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 The ITO Ward-1(4), Jaipur cuke Vs. Shri Pradeep Kumar Dusad R-1. Behind Motor Aids Petrol Pump, Jhotwara Road, Shashtri Nagar, Jaiapur. LFkk;h y s[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABLPD4678H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;Fkh Z@Respondent vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1192/JPR/2024 fu/k Zkj…

The Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 432/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…articular case. In a number of cases, courts have recognized and held that where assessing authorities rely only on the testimony of a witness the assessee is to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him. In CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994 )210 ITR 103 (SC), noting that purchases made by the assessee were found to be ingenuine only on the basis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CI…

The United Builders Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3465/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…articular case. In a number of cases, courts have recognized and held that where assessing authorities rely only on the testimony of a witness the assessee is to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him. In CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994 )210 ITR 103 (SC), noting that purchases made by the assessee were found to be ingenuine only on the basis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CI…

Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3464/AHD/2016[2013-14 (Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…articular case. In a number of cases, courts have recognized and held that where assessing authorities rely only on the testimony of a witness the assessee is to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine him. In CIT vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994 )210 ITR 103 (SC), noting that purchases made by the assessee were found to be ingenuine only on the basis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CI…

DCIT, Ghaziabad vs. M/S. Devidayal Aluminium Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3850/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] M.B.Power (Madhya Pradesh) Vs Dcit, Ltd., 239, Okhla Industrial Central Circle-2, Estate, Nehru Place, Gurgaon Delhi -110019. Pan-Aafcm6698A Appellant Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity…………….” Reliance is also placed on CIT v. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del), CIT v. S. C. Sethi [2007] 295 ITR 351 (Raj), CIT v. Eastern Commercial Ent (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Cal). VII. Mr. Lodha has retracted his statement recorded u/s 132(4) Invariably, statements u/s 132(4) are recorded multiples times, under great mental pressure and stress and most of times, the person whose statement is recorded do not have the relevant details, documents etc. In the absence of precise information, statements made u/s 132(4) ar…

Shahnaj, Near Bherudanji Well vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Income Tax Office

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…ecutive Officer Municipal Board Sardarshahar, but the AO did not Provide any opportunity to cross examine the official who adversely commented. The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in its decision in the case of CIT Vs, Eastern Commercial Enterprises — reported in 210 ITR 103 — observed that if the AO relies on the testimony of a witness or some other evidences, the assessee is to be afforded an opportunity to cross-examine such witnesses. Itis not open to the AO to get over this hurdle on any plea. A re-assessment made onthe basis of entries in the records of a auctioneer without giving the assessee an opportunity to…

ACIT, Central Circle-1, Patna vs. Piyush & Associates Private Limited, Patna

ITA 99/PAT/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.99/Pat/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle -1 Piyush & Associates Private Ltd. Patna, 6Th Floor, C.R. (Annexee) Vs Pirmohani, Kadamkuan, Patna, Building, Bir Chand Patel Path, Bihar-800003 Patna-800001 [Pan : Aadcp3041N] अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्‍यर्थी/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Maitin, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 250

…according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion, but according to law and not humour, and the assessment is to be not arbitrary, vague and fanciful, but legal and regular. In case of CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal) it was held that where the assessee has given a comparative instance of gross profit rate, it is necessary for the department to come to a finding as to the norm of the gross profit on the basis of comparative cases. Therefore, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to counter the comparative statement cited by the assessee before he can h…