Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

51 ITR 20High Court1964#2725 most cited

What is Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT authority for?

The right to cross-examine is not an absolute or universal right in income tax proceedings. The Income Tax Officer, while acting as a quasi-judicial tribunal and observing natural justice, is not bound by the Evidence Act or required to allow cross-examination of every piece of evidence or disclose the source of information.

43

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT · right to cross-examine · natural justice violation · evidence admissibility · Assessing Officer powers · Income Tax Act · Section 142(1) · Section 143(2) · Section 68 · Section 69C · quasi-judicial tribunal · informant disclosure

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 69CSection 142(1)Section 148Section 153ASection 10(38)Section 115BBESection 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

violation of natural justicesection 147(a)bogus ltcgcolourable devicebogus long term capital gainshort term capital gainspenny stocksection 10(38)business connectionbest judgment assessmentlong term capital gainsshort term capital gain

Judgments citing Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT

ITO 8 (2)(1), Mumbai vs. Bhairav Steel Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 4126/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4126/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Ito 8(2)(1) बिधम/ Bhairav Steel Enterprises Room No.259/A,2Nd Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 10, Kanti Nagar, A/30, Road, Mumbai-400020. Rajgruhi, Behind J. B. Nagar, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacb9118K (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri Rajendra Joshi (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 03/12/2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/03/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 25.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2009- 10. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Joshi (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 148

…at is a risk which an assessee resorting to unfair tax saving devices has necessarily to run and an assessee who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it." 6.2.18. As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T Devasahaya Nadar v. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.); it Was held: 17 A.Y.2009-10 "It cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the Income-tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with…

ITO 31(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sh. Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2634/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 31(3)(1) V. Shri Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav 307, 3Rd Floor Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-13 Room No. 408, 4Th Floor Shiv Sagar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex Kotkar Road, Goregoan (E) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai - 400063

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amrita Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 31(3)(1) v. Shri Ramavadh Ramdhari Yadav 307, 3rd Floor Pratyakshakar Bhavan, C-13 Room No. 408, 4th Floor Shiv Sagar Industrial Estate Bandra Kurla Complex Kotkar Road, Goregoan (E) Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051 Mumbai - 400063 PAN: AAAPY2044G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Amrita Singh Date of Hearing : 20.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 23.10.2020 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learn…

Smt. Hiteshi V Metha, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 390/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am I.T.A. No.390/Bang/2020 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Hiteshi V. Mehta, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.29/A, Shanthappa Lane, Ward-5(2)(2), Bengaluru. Sjp Road Cross Bengaluru-560 002. [Pan:Akapm 0433D]

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 234B

…tional Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. Similar is the view taken by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of In case of Prem Castings Pvt.Ltd. Vs.CIT (Supra). At this juncture we referred to decision of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad), wherein, it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross-examination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industri…

Joggere Sampangappa Venkatesh, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1872/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to crossexamination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V.…

Shri. Joggere Sampangappa Ananth, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1866/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to crossexamination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V.…

Smt. Mahalakshmi, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1869/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to crossexamination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V.…

Smt. Sheela Ananth, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1868/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to crossexamination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V.…

Shri. Joggere Ananth Santosh, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(5), Bengaluru

In the result, all the appeals are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1867/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jan 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri A K Garodia

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 10(38)Section 68

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to crossexamination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Further in case of GTC Industries Ltd. V.…

Ramesh Chand Kothari (HUF), Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G.S Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Addl.CIT
Section 10(38)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Rameshchand Kothari, The Assistant HUF Commissioner of No.39, 1st Anjaneya Temple, Vs. Income Tax, Sheshadripuram, Ward – 2 (2) (1), Bangalore – 560 020. Bangalore. PAN: ACZPK7883N APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri G.S Prashanth, CA Revenue by : Shri K.N.Dhandapani, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 12-12-2019 Date of Pronouncement : 13-12-2019 O R D E R PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. Present appeal has been filed by assessee ag…

M/S. Sunitha Darla, Mysore vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Mysore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1163/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia & Smt.Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Ajeet, Addl. CIT
Section 10(38)

…t and depends on circumstances of the case and the statute concerned, as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross-examination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross- ITA No.1163(B)/2019 4 examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 5. Further, in case…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…grieved at that stage. Only when the assessment order went against it, the assessee conveniently raised such belated plea of denial of opportunity of fair hearing and breach of principles of natural justice. [Para 35] In the case of T. Deasahaya Nadar v. CIT 51 ITR 20 Hon’ble Madras High Court has held that It cannot be said as a general proposition of law that any evidence upon which the department might rely should have been subjected to cross- examination. The procedure for assessment is indicated in section 23(3) of the Act. The ITO is not a Court. Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, he occupies…

Sri Srinivasa Educational & Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue and all the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 709/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.V Vasudevan, Vice Presidnet & Shri B.R Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Prashanth G.S, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Kumar Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 11Section 11(2)(b)Section 11(5)Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)Section 132(4)

…ion Society vs. ITA Nos.709 to 712 /Bang/2018 ITA Nos.1142 to 1148 /Bang/2018 CO Nos.88 to 89 /Bang/2018 Page 53 of 73 ADIT (2008)(20 SOT 353), wherein the ITAT has referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of T.Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (51 ITR 20). The appellant has brought out in its written submissions a plethora of case laws to meet the points raised by the Assessing Officer. The very same Madras High Court in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. BALAJI EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE PUBLIC TRUST (2015) 374 ITR 0274 (Mad) has held that so long as there is no involuntary nature of colle…

Rameshchand Kothari, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ward-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaishri Rameshchand Kothari, No. 39, Link Road, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore – 560 020. Pan: Aczpk7883N Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri.G.S.Prashanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10(38)

…nd depends on the circumstances of the case and the statute concerned as held in State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohd. AIR 1967 (SC) 122, and Nath International Sales Vs. UOI reported in AIR 1992 Del 295. In case of T. Devasahaya Nadar V. CIT reported in (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it has been held that; Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 699/Bang/2019 "it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross- examination, if the assessing officer refuses to produce an informant for cross-examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 6. Furt…

Income Tax Officer-11(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Western Imaginary Transcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4929/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Ramit Kochar

For Appellant: Shri. Bhavesh P. ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Satyanathan Raju (Sr. AR)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…vs. ITAT (2002) 125 Taxman 763 (Raj.) (25) Sanjay Oilcake Industries vs. CIT (2009) 316 ITR 274 (Guj.) 38 ACIT vs. Tribhovandas Bhimji Zaveri (2000) 74 ITD 92 (Mum). (27) Homi Jehangir Gheesta vs. CIT (1961) 41 ITR 135 (28) T. Devashaya Nadar vs. CIT (1964) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) (29) R. S Dass vs. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 593. (30) Chairman, Board of Mining Examination vs. Ramjee AIR 1977 SC 965. (31) GTC Industries Ltd., vs ACIT (1998) 65 ITD 380 (Bom.). (32) SBI vs. S.K Sharma AIR 1996 SC 364 (33) Bholanath Polyfab Pvt. Ltd., 355 ITR 290 (Guj.) (34) Sanket Steel Traders vs. ITO (IT Appeal no. 2801 & 2937 (Ahd) o…

Shakuntala Properties P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2381/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…es vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del. 295 that the right of hearing does not include a right a cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) it was held that “it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 5.2 Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not properly addressed the ground…

Shakuntala Agencies P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-23(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2379/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…es vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del. 295 that the right of hearing does not include a right a cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) it was held that “it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 5.2 Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not properly addressed the ground…

Ipl Realtors P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2378/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…es vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del. 295 that the right of hearing does not include a right a cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad.) it was held that “it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to cross examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice.” 5.2 Since the Ld. CIT(A) has not properly addressed the ground…

Ramesh Chandra Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 41(5), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2995/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2005-06 Ramesh Chandra Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 41(5), House No. 4, Road No. 7, New Delhi East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Pan: Aaghr2553F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Khetan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254Section 68

…es vs. UOI AIR 1992 Del 295 that the right of hearing does not include a right to cross examine. The right to cross examine must depend upon the circumstances of each case and also on the statute concerned. In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadar vs. CIT (1965) 51 ITR 20 (Mad) it was held that “it is not an universal rule that any evidence upon which the department may rely should have been subjected to 17 cross-examination. If the AO refuses to produce an informant for cross examination by the assessee there cannot be any violation of natural justice. “In the case of GTC Industries ltd. Vs ACIT(1998) 60 TTJ(Bom…

ACIT 19(3), Mumbai vs. Skyway Constructon Co., Mumbai

ITA 5865/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 145(3)

…, it cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that the revenue cannot rely on any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it" 6.10 In the case of T. Devasahaya Nadarv. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.), it was held: "It cannot be /aid down as a general proposition of law that the Income- tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has not been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act, but he must act in consonance with natural justice,…

ITO 19(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Babulal U Munot, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4506/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4506/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Ito-19(1)(2), Mumbai, बिधम/ Shri Babulal U Munot 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir, Prop. M/S. Steel Samrat Vs. (India) Flat No. 1901-A, 19Th Tardeo Road, Mumbai- 400007 Floor, Shreepati Tower, A Wing, Tatya Gharpure Path, Girgaon Mumbai-04 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aftpm5429H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Shri T. A. Khan (Dr) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11.05.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -30, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2010- 11. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “(1) Whether, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Addition To The Extent Of 7.5% Of Non-Genuine Purchase Claimed By The Assessee A.Y.2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. A. Khan (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69C

…me. That is a risk which an assesses resorting to unfair fax saving devices has necessarily to run and an assessee who has resorted to such devices has to thank himself for it.” 2.4.23 As regards the issue of cross-examination, in T. Devasahaya Nadarv, [l964] 51 ITR 20 (Mad.). it was held: cannot be hid down as a general proposition of taw that the - tax Department cannot rely upon any evidence which has been subjected to cross-examination. An ITO occupies the position of a quasi-judicial Tribunal and is not bound by the rules of the Evidence Act hut he must act in consonance with natural justice, and one such r…