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 366,470 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

Shri Sanjaybhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 175/RJT/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprise reported in 210 ITR 103 wherein it was held as under: “A man indulging in double-speaking cannot be said by any means a truthful man at any stage- and no court can decide on which occasion he was truthful” 9.2. We also note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing has not made any arguments on the submissions made before the authorities below but has…

Shri Kishor Gordhanbhai Jaksania, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 17/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprise reported in 210 ITR 103 wherein it was held as under: “A man indulging in double-speaking cannot be said by any means a truthful man at any stage- and no court can decide on which occasion he was truthful” 9.2. We also note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing has not made any arguments on the submissions made before the authorities below but has…

Shri Ghanshyambhai Gordhanbhai Jaksania, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

ITA 13/RJT/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Nov 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Ranjeet Singh, CIT-DR
Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Shri Dineshbhhai G.Jakasania vs. DCIT and 3 Other Groups AYs – 2005-06 to 2008-09 & 2010-11 & 2011-12 In holding so we draw support and guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprise reported in 210 ITR 103 wherein it was held as under: “A man indulging in double-speaking cannot be said by any means a truthful man at any stage- and no court can decide on which occasion he was truthful” 9.2. We also note that the learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing has not made any arguments on the submissions made before the authorities below but has…

Narangs International Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, assessee appeal in ITA no

ITA 1383/MUM/2013[1994-95]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2019AY 1994-95

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…ies cannot be reliable witness for the purpose of making disallowance of depreciation because these very parties as stated above have admitted existence of assets before the High Court. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in 210 ITR 103 and Madras High Court reported in 315 ITR 105 wherein such witnesses who shift their stand have been held to be not reliable witnesses for making addition. j. It is submitted that there is no allegation that the assessee received anything more than lease rentals of Rs.5.33 cr from lessee's. Further the rate of 18% taken by CIT(A) is only a noti…

Sea Linkers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 8(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 2297/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/S. Sea Linkers Private Acit 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, Bpt, Plot No. 107, M.K Road V. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aahcs5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue By: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,Dr

For Appellant: Shri. Deepak TralshawalaFor Respondent: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “J” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2297/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ M/s. Sea Linkers Private ACIT 8(1)(2), Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, BPT, Plot no. 107, M.K Road v. Quay Street, Darukhana, Mumbai-400020 Mumbai-400010 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN: AAHCS5084N (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee by: Shri. Deepak Tralshawala Revenue by: Shri. Manish Kumar Singh,DR सुनवाई की तारीख /Date of Hearing : 02.05.2019…

Income Tax Officer-4(2)(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Mayuresh Logistics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 6691/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6691/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) In The Matter Of:

For Appellant: Shri D. G. Pansari, DRFor Respondent: Shri Nitesh Joshi, AR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…6 OF 2007 DT 16-1-2009(Delhi)(HC) Hi) M/s. R. W. Promotions )(P) Ltd. v/s ACIT (Bombay High Court) ITA No. 1489 of 2013 (order dated 13th July, 2015) (Copy enclosed) iv) Tin Box Co. v. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) v) CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994)210 ITR 103 (Cal.)(HC) vi) International Forest Co. v/s CIT; 101 ITR 721 (J & K High Court) 16 I.T.A. No. 6691/Mum/2017 and C.O. No. 47/Mum/2019 M/s Mayuresh Logistics Pvt. Ltd. 8.10) The addition has been made u/s 68 of the Act in respect of share application money received from four private limited companies. Section 68 of the Act reads as under: "68. Cas…

Raj Karan Dassani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 2346/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 2346/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Raj Karan Dassani......………………..………………………....………………...…………………….….Appellant [Pan : Adnpd 8826 B] Ito, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata………............................................................…....….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate, Appearing On Behalf Of The Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr, Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent.

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 16Section 250Section 35(1)(ii)

…ported in 288 ITR 345 (Del) d) Decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union of India reported in 247 ITR 274 (SC) e) Decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Eastern Commercial Enterprisesreported in 210 ITR 103 (Cal) f) Decision of Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of P.S.Abdul Majeed vs Agricultural Income Tax & Sales Tax Officer & Ors reported in 209 ITR 821 (Ker) 5.4. We find that the ld AO did not provide the material rather he merely allowed the assessee to read the statement. This, in our considered opinion, was not justified. The assessee can…

ACIT, Circle-35, Kolkata vs. M/S. Kedia Pipes, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle – 35 Kolkata.................................………………………………………………….....Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata – 700 107. [Pan: Aadfk 1107 D] M/S. Kedia Pipes...................…………………………………………………..............................Respondent 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 277, Marshall House, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Sanjoy Modi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10, 2019 Order

Section 133ASection 145(3)

…ase laws: (i) Bombay Steel Centre v. ITO [1995] 83 Taxman 85 (Ahd.) (Mag.) (ii) Murlidhar Corporation v. Asst. CIT [1997] 58 TTJ (Ahd.) 699 (iii) Jhandu Mal Tara Chand Rice Mills v. CIT (1969) 73 ITR 192 (P&H) (iv) CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal.). 7 M/s. Kedia Pipes I.T.A. No.2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 (v) Handloom Intensive Development Project (Bijnor) Ltd. v. ITO [1991] 39 TTJ (Delhi) 382 (vi) Badrinath Agarwal v CIT [1967] 65 ITR 242 (All.) (vii) Dabros Industrial Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT (1977) 108 ITR 424 (Cal). (viii) Joseph Thomas & Bros. v. CIT [1968] 68 ITR 796 (K…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ad shifted on him and had just mechanically adhered to disallow the loss .aimed by the appellant without rebutting any of the submissions of the appellant. . The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the CIT Vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103, held that right to cross-examine a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross-examination is one of the corner-stones of natural justice. Thus on this limb of the argument itself the assessment order should be held to be bad in law. When the AO is having the statement of Mr Jagdish Purogit, he mus…

DCIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Darpan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…titute a valid ground for rejection of books nor for estimation of profit. The assessee has submitted that net profit varies year to year and can never be constant. A comparative chart was submitted. In the 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…

DCIT, CC-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maan Steel & Power Ltd., Kolkata

In the result this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1192/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri A. T. Varkey)

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

…Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) had held that the opportunity of cross-examination must be provided to the assessee. The Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises (1994) 210 ITR 103 (Kol HC) 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. 9.1. Even otherwise, it is not clear as to which of these statements were recorded during the course of search opera…

Shri Babulal G. Chudasama, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 981/RJT/2010[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot01 Feb 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.981/Rjt/2010 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 69A

…rson and changing his statement. Therefore, we are reluctant to consider the statement furnished by Shri Dinesh Kumar N. Pathak. In this regard we find the Asstt. Year 2000-01 13 Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT v. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 has held that a man indulging in double speaking cannot be said, by any means, a truthful man at any stage and no Court can decide on which occasion he was truthful. The In view of the above, we are reluctant to consider the statement furnished by the assessee and the Shri Dinesh Kumar N. Pathak. 12. The argument of the learned counsel for the a…

ITO, Ward - 40(2), Kolkata vs. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1730/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2014-15 Ito Ward-40(2) V/S. Shri Suresh Chand Gupta 2Nd Floor, 3 16, Tara Chand Dutta Government Place Street, Kolkata-700073 West,Kolkata-700001 [Pan No.Aczpg 0724 C] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ajoy Kr. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 26-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 26-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata’S Order Dated 20.04.2017, Passed In Case No.10190/Cit(A)-12/Kol/Ward-40(2)/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Ground Raised In The Instant Appeal Pleads That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Treating Assessee’S Alleged Long Term Capital Gains (Ltcg) Of ₹3,84,74,960/- To Be Bogus In The Nature Of Unexplained Cash Credits U/S 68 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Qua The Impugned Sole Issue Reads As Under:- “3.2 I Have Perused The Observations & Findings Contained In The Assessment Order. I Have Also Considered The Submission Of The Appellant Along With Paper Book Filed By Ld. A/R Which Contained, Inter-Alia, The Following Documents:-

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…d upon by the investigation wing or by the AO himself. This also was denied by the AO. I find that this is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. I find that the Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises reported in 210 ITR 103 has held that right to cross examine a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross examination is one of the corner stones of natural justice. Thus on this ground itself the assessment is held to be bad in law. I find that the AO having said that he had certain investigation report from the Investig…

Rakesh Kumar Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1053/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1053/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Rakesh Kumar Saraf.....…..……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant C/O Skrk Marketing (India) Pvt. Ltd. 19, Armenian Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Ajaps 3157 R] Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(1), Kolkata...............................…………….…………..…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Sr. D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue.

Section 10(38)Section 250

…ly basis of issuing the show cause notice.” Similar propositions of law have been laid down in the following case-law:-  P.S. Abdul majeed vs. Agricultural Income-Tax and Sales Tax Officer and others 209 ITR 821 (Ker.)  CIT vs. Easter Commercial Enterprises 210 ITR 103 (Cal)  Asst. CIT vs. Ajnara India Ltd. (2011) 49 DTR 273 (Del-Trib) 19. On similar facts where the revenue has alleged that the assessee has declared bogus LTCG, it was held as follows: a) The CALCUTTA HIGH COURT in the case of BLB CABLES & CONDUCTORS [ITA No. 78 of 2017] dated 19.06.2018. The High Court held vide Para 4.1: “…………we find that all…

ITO, Ward - 40(4), Kolkata vs. Shri Vishwanath Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/KOL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 10(38)Section 11Section 142(1)Section 68

…to draw adverse inference against the assessee. However, the assessee’s plea was not fulfilled. We note that the Ld. CIT(A) rightly took note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprises reported in 210 ITR 103 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that right to cross examine a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross examination is one of the corner stone’s of natural justice. We concur with the Ld. CIT(A) that the AO has mechanically followed investigation report/study of DIT (Inv.) without bringing…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…made available for cross- examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee – Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment – No substantial question of law arises.‖  Eastern Commercial Enterprise, (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103] (pages 294- 299 of PB-5) at page-111: Held as under: ―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 p…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…made available for cross- examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee – Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment – No substantial question of law arises.‖  Eastern Commercial Enterprise, (1994) (Cal) [210 ITR 103] (pages 294- 299 of PB-5) at page-111: Held as under: ―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 p…

DCIT, Central Circle-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Prb Securities Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 211/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 211/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Prb Securities Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabcp 5425 G ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Manish Tiwari, AR
Section 143(3)

…d shifted on him and had just mechanically adhered to disallow the loss .aimed by the appellant without rebutting any of the submissions of the appellant. . The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of the CIT Vs Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103, held that right to cross-examine a witness adverse to the assessee is an indispensable right and the opportunity of such cross-examination is one of the corner-stones of natural justice. Thus on this limb of the argument itself the assessment order should be held to be bad in law. When the AO is having the statement of Mr Jagdish Purogit, he mus…

M/S. Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6724/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income – Tax V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC) ] Kishhinchand Chellaram V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. Bombay City 1] 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits 64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Sett…

M/S Mehta Construction Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee i

ITA 6857/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Narendra Chodhary

For Appellant: Mrs. Ranojain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 143

…books of accounts 325 ITR 13 (Delhi) Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Paradise Holidays. 4. The appellant has not been provided with details of comparable cases relied upon 68 ITR 796 (Kerala) Joseph Thomas and Brothers. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Kerala & 210 ITR 103 (Calcutta) Commissioner of Income – Tax V. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [relied upon 125 ITR 713 (SC) ] Kishhinchand Chellaram V. Commissioner of Income- Tax. Bombay City 1] 5. The appellant should have been provided with an opportunity to rebut before rejecting the books of accounts and estimating the profits 64 ITR 175 (AP) S. Sarabhaiah Sett…