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

P.Savithri, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1862/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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 1861/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1860/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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1859/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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1858/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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1857/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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1856/CHNY/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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…

A.Vijayalakshmi, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1855/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Aug 2017AY 2007-08

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…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1854/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…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1853/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…

Anand Palanisami, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 1852/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…

Bunts Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3164/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Bunts Industries Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ 210 Anandraj Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, V. Estate, M.K. Road, Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. Bhandup, Mumbai – 400 078. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccb5692C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sumen Kumar, D.R
Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250(6)Section 271

…ional evidence. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in not considering the additional evidence. 2.8.5 Reliance is also placed on Commissioner of Income-tax v, Ranjit Kumar Choudhury reported in 288 ITR 179 (Gau). The head note is reproduced below: Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals)--Powers of Commissioner (Appeals)-- Power to admit additional evidence-Scope of rule 46A- Documentary evidence not tendered before Assessing Officer-No reason for failure to adduce evidence-Documents not admissible as evidence before Commissioner (Appeals- Income tax Act…

Concord Enviro Systems (P ) Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 10, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee company in ITA N0

ITA 3917/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3917/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Concord Enviro Systems (Pvt) Acit -10, बनाम/ Ltd., 101, Hdil Tower, Aayakar Bhavan, V. Anant Kanekar Marg, Annex. M.K. Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai-400051 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaacc8962C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Dr. S. Pandian,DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

…Rules, 1962 and in the light of this, the additional evidence sought to be admitted was rejected. In support, the learned CIT(A) relied on the following decisions in support of his decision not to admit additional evidences : a) CIT v. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179(Gau. HC) b) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah 231 ITR 01 (Bom). c) Fairdeal Filaments Limited v. CIT 302 ITR 173(Guj HC) d) Ram Prasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867(All HC) e) CIT v. Rao Raja Hanutsingh 252 ITR 528(Raj.HC) 9. The learned CIT(A) adjudicated ground No. 1 whereby it was agitated by the assessee company that the AO has erred in stating that the a…

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Good Value Marketing Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4149/MUM/2014[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2016AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.4149/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:1996-97 The Dcit(Osd)-1, M/S. Good Value Marketing बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, Co. Ltd., Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Industrial Assurance Bldg., Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacg 4925D .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Ms. Bharti M. Singh अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By: ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Sudhir J. Mehta

For Respondent: Shri Sudhir J. Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 80I

…sion submitted by the assessee without referring for the verification hence there is violation of natural justice and amounts to admission of additional evidence. He relied on the decision of Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (2007) 288 ITR 179 (Gau.) which held that where there was no reason for failure to adduce evidence before A.O. – document not admissible as evidence before learned CIT(A) under rule 46A – learned CIT(A) got power not to admit evidence. He further submitted that the claim of the assessee that in subsequent assessment year the A.O. allowed claim of assessee, it is su…

ITO 16(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Pukhraj S. Jain, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3360/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year- 2010-11 Ito-16(1)(3), Shri Pukhraj S. Jain, R. No.220, 2Nd Floor, 8, Ground Flr, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Tardeo Rd. Guru Rajendra House, Vs. Mumbai-400007 135 Trimbak Parshuram St. 6Th Kumbharwada Lane, Mumbai-400004 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aajpj8080C

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ise, as per the provisions of the Act, the Ld. First Appellate Authority is entitled to admit additional evidence and further to decide in accordance with law. Our view is fortified by the decision and ratio laid down therein in CIT Vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhary 288 ITR 179 (Gauhati) and Byramji & Company Vs. CIT 11 ITR 286 (Nagpur), CIT Vs. P.S. Jain & Company Ltd 322 ITR 320 (Del.), Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah Vs. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom.) So far as invoking section 41 of the Act is concerned. The assessee has explained the reasons for making the payments which were on account of lack of funds and further the assessee est…