CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury

288 ITR 179High Court2007#2085 most cited

What is CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury authority for?

The appellate authority must follow Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules when admitting additional evidence, which includes recording reasons for admission and providing the Assessing Officer an opportunity to verify or refute the evidence. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

55

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury · Ranjit Kumar Choudhury 288 ITR 179 · rule 46A · additional evidence · appellate stage · violation of natural justice · opportunity to AO · principles of natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 119Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 158BG

Issues it is cited on

section 153(a)violation of natural justicesection 132(4a)section 40a(3)section 132(1)section 153a(1)section 145(3)section 40arule 46asearch assessmentsection 153dsection 145

Judgments citing CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-I, Kanpur vs. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal, Mumbai

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

ITA 442/LKW/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. Cit V. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai Pan:Aaopj1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Smt. Namita S Pandey, Cit(Dr) Respondent By: None Date Of Hearing: 13 05 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 250(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUBHASH MALGURIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dy. CIT v. Shri Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal Central Circle-I 2601, Glenridege Kanpur Hiranandani Gardens Powai, Mumbai PAN:AAOPJ1739K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Smt. Namita S Pandey, CIT(DR) Respondent by: None Date of hearing: 13 05 2024 Date of pronouncement: 13 05 2024 O R D E R PER SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-IV, Kanpur dated 30.4.2019 for the asse…

ITO, Ward-2(3)(7), Surat vs. Atin Exports LLP, Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 148/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) I.T.O., Atin Exports Llp, Ward 2(3)(7), 4Th Floor, Shashvat Apartmental, Vs. Surat. Pipala Sheri, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. Pan No. Abbfa 6184 F Appellant/ Respondent Respondent/ Assessee

Section 144Section 254(1)Section 46ASection 68

…genuineness of credit entry in their books of account and the assessee failed to discharge their onus. To support such view, the ld. CIT-DR for the revenue relied upon the case laws which was relied by Assessing Officer in CIT Vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhary (2007) 288 ITR 179 and N.B. Surti Family Trust Vs CIT (2007) 288 ITR 523 wherein it was held that where the evidence is new and assessee could not give any explanation why such evidence was not produced at lower stage, the Tribunal was justified in not entertaining new evidence. The ld. CIT-DR for the revenue submits that books of account was not verified by Assess…

DCIT, Corporate Circ Cle-1(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 355/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 35A

…y has to be given to the AO to verify/refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: P a g e 2 | 7 C.O.No.11/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidence…

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 327/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 35A

…y has to be given to the AO to verify/refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: P a g e 2 | 7 C.O.No.11/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidence…

DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. the Orissa State Co-Operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT
Section 43B

…taking such evidences on record. Secondly reasonable opportunity has to be given to the AO to verify/refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) P a g e 2 | 13 Assessment Year : 2009-10 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opport…

DCIT, Central Circle- II, Noida vs. Tirupati Udyog Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7158/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Amit Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 46A(2)Section 68

…t giving the opportunity u/s 46A(2) of I.T. Rules to examine the genuineness & correctness of such documents, which were never furnished before the A.O. and hence violated the principles of admission of additional evidence, as laid down in CIT Vs Ranjit Kumar 288 ITR 179 (Guj), Raj Kumar Srimal 102 ITR 515 (call), Ganpat Rai & Sons Ltd. 24 ITR 362 (Bom). 3. Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting addition based on claim made by assessee for the first time claiming that such receipts were actually received in earlier years, wheneven before CIT(A), the assessee d…

ACIT, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela vs. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y- Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. 20, Civil Township, 7 20, Civil Township, 7-8, Area, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Addpr 7405 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra S.C.Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21 / /1/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam
Section 68

…ccepted the additional evidences from the assessee violating the terms of Rules 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 in not granting an opportunity to the AO to rebut the case. Ld CIT DR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Ranjt Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179 (Gau) ii) C. Unnikrisnan vs CIT, 233 ITR 485 (Ker) iii) Prabhavati S Shah vs CIT, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) iv) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel Pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691(hp) v) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) vi) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del)] vii) Manish Build Well PvtLtd., 16 taxmann.com 27 (Del) Further, ld CIT DR relied on the order o…

DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Swarnganga Construction P.Ltd, Bhilwara

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…on addl. evidence furnished, without passing any separate order u/r 46A(2) to show that the conditions for filing addl. evidence u/r 46A(1) are satisfied, thereby violating the principles of admissions of addl. evidence as explained in Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Guj). That the powers of CIT(A) to admit or reject is not absolute but only subject to satisfaction of conditions under rule 46A(1) to be specifically recorded in writing in the appellate order. 5. On facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in calling the enquiry (remand) report from the AO without first passing any order…

Mohd. Imran, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

ITA 6741/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 44A

…ore drawing his final conclusion. But where no reason at all is given or explanation is not backed by facts on record, the rule may well be invoked and such additional evidence should not be accepted as was pointed out in CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary [2007] 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati). 4. In the following cases it has been held that the mere fact that the evidence sought to be produced is vital and important does not provide a substantial cause to allow its admission at the appellate stage, especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage and had not been produced by him without any suffic…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6616/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., 56 taxmann.com 286, 231 Taxman 384 (Del); iii) ACIT vs. Mohar Singh, 16 taxmann.com 37, 49 SOT 129 (Raj.); iv) E-4 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4491/Del/2010, A.Y. 2007-08; v) CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179 (Gau.); vi) Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All); vii) ACIT vs. Nirula Handicraft Bazar (P) Ltd., ITA No.3886 (Delhi), Order dated 12.10.2012; viii) ITO 24(2) vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, ITA No.3982/Del/2009 (ITAT, Delhi); & ix) ITO 31(1), New Delhi vs. Bhai Manjit Singh (ITA No.1807/Del/2010). He accordingly submitted that th…

M/S. Jitf Waterways Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the cross appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5810/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs. Jitf Waterways Ltd., Circle-13(2), Jindal Tif Centre, New Delhi. 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M Assessment Year: 2010-11 Jitf Waterways Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Jindal Tif Centre, Circle-13(2), 28, Najafgarh Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aabcj7845M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; & Shri Asnshul Sachar & Karan Jain, Cas Revenue By : Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.Dr & Smt. Naina Soin Kopil, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2018

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, Advocate; and Shri Asnshul Sachar &For Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, Sr.DR &
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

…Jansampark Advertising & Marketing (P) Ltd., 56 taxmann.com 286, 231 Taxman 384 (Del); iii) ACIT vs. Mohar Singh, 16 taxmann.com 37, 49 SOT 129 (Raj.); iv) E-4 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.4491/Del/2010, A.Y. 2007-08; v) CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary, 288 ITR 179 (Gau.); vi) Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 496 (All); vii) ACIT vs. Nirula Handicraft Bazar (P) Ltd., ITA No.3886 (Delhi), Order dated 12.10.2012; viii) ITO 24(2) vs. Kuber Chand Sharma, ITA No.3982/Del/2009 (ITAT, Delhi); & ix) ITO 31(1), New Delhi vs. Bhai Manjit Singh (ITA No.1807/Del/2010). He accordingly submitted that th…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Ace Glass Containers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1432/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A Nos. 1431&1432/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2003-04 Acit, Circle-5 (2), Kolkata. -Vs- M/S Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known Ace Glass Containers Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 4384 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 250

…and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee without granting any opportunity to the AO to examine these additional evidences and give his opinion. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Chawdhury in 288 ITR 179 (Gau) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Miss. Susmita Sen in I.T.A. No. 2 M/s Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. A.Yrs.2001-02&2003-04 5132/Mum/2008 order dated 19.03.2008 and submitted that admission of additional evidence is bad in law. He further submitted that the issue is a question of fact and the Ld. CIT(…

DCIT, Cir-5, Kolkata vs. M/S Ace Glass Containers Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the both these appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1431/KOL/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm ] I.T.A Nos. 1431&1432/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2001-02 & 2003-04 Acit, Circle-5 (2), Kolkata. -Vs- M/S Hindusthan National Glass & Industries Ltd. (Formerly Known Ace Glass Containers Ltd.) [Pan: Aadca 4384 P] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Srihari, CITFor Respondent: Shri D.S.Damle, FCA
Section 250

…and adjudicated the issue in favour of the assessee without granting any opportunity to the AO to examine these additional evidences and give his opinion. He relied on the decision of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Chawdhury in 288 ITR 179 (Gau) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Mumbai ITAT in the case of Miss. Susmita Sen in I.T.A. No. 2 M/s Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. A.Yrs.2001-02&2003-04 5132/Mum/2008 order dated 19.03.2008 and submitted that admission of additional evidence is bad in law. He further submitted that the issue is a question of fact and the Ld. CIT(…

The Income Tax Officer, Gurdaspur vs. Sh Joginder Singh, Gurdaspur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/ASR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 148/(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. A. N. Mishra (D.R.)For Respondent: Sh. Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)
Section 143(3)

…ed in allowing the relief of Rs.62,84,931/- without appreciating that books of A/c were not produced by the assessee before the A.O.’ The Revenue’s sole objection, for which it before us places reliance on the decision in CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury [2007] 288 ITR 179 (Gau), is that there has been a clear contravention Rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘the Rules’ hereinafter). Neither has there been a recording of reasons by the ld. CIT(A) for admitting the additional evidences furnished before him for the first time, nor did he call for a remand report from the AO in the matter. 3. We have heard the parti…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Stauff India Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 670/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.669 & 670/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Stauff India Private Limited, GAT No. 2340, Pune Nagar Road, Pune – 412207 PAN : AAACK7672D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Pune vs. Stauff India Private Ltd., Pune

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 669/PUN/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit GujarathiFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण “ए” न्यायऩीठ ऩुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE श्री डी. करुणाकरा राव, ऱेखा सदस्य, एवं श्री ववकास अवस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA Nos.669 & 670/PUN/2014 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Stauff India Private Limited, GAT No. 2340, Pune Nagar Road, Pune – 412207 PAN : AAACK7672D ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak and Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue…

P.Savithri, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1866/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…ad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in…

P.Savithri, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1865/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…ad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in…

P.Savithri, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1864/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…ad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in…

P.Savithri, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeals of the assessees for the impugned

ITA 1863/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Arun C. Bharath, CIT
Section 132

…ad High Court in the case of Haji Lal Mohd Biri Works vs. CIT 275 ITR 496, that of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bank of Punjab Ltd 286 ITR 630, that of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of CIT vs Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179, that of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar vs. CIT 288 ITR 278 and that of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N.B. Surti Family Trust vs. ITA Nos. 1852 to 1866 & 2062 :- 15 -: to 2063/Mds/16 CIT 288 ITR 523. He confirmed all the additions made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Aggrieved, assessees are in…