H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

387 ITR 561High Court2016#550 most cited

What is H.R. Mehta v. ACIT authority for?

An assessment order is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer denies the assessee the opportunity to cross-examine deponents whose statements are relied upon or fails to provide the material used against them, as this violates principles of natural justice.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.R. Mehta v. ACIT · 387 ITR 561 · cross-examination · natural justice · assessment validity · material relied upon · denial of opportunity · section 143(3) · section 153A · section 147

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 153ASection 245D(4)Section 245D(6B)Section 69Section 263Section 147

Issues it is cited on

settlement applicationsection 245d(4)section 245dsection 245section 24regular assessmentaccommodation entrysection 133agenuineness of the transactionunexplained investmentsection 131undisclosed income

Judgments citing H.R. Mehta v. ACIT

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2015-16 to 2017-18 Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, cuke The Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Shop No. 8-9, Ganesh Income Tax, Nagar-VIA, Near Nadi Ka Central Circle-3, Room No. Phatak, Benad Road, NA-102, New Central Jhotwara, Jaipur. Revenue Building, Statute Circle, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.:…

ITO 12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Lucas Meyer Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is allowed, for statistical

ITA 3645/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri G Manjunatha () Ito-12(3)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Lucas Meyer Industries Pvt Ltd 205/D, Veena Nagar, Chincholi Road Malad W), Mumbai 400 064 Pan : Aaacl6818N Appellant Respondednt

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…A.O., to establish that no cash transactions were involved in the bank accounts of the investing company then without further probe to prove contrary the addition u/s 68 in the hand of the assessee cannot be made. Further in the case of H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT [387 ITR 561 (Bombay)] it was held that the assessee is bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitted to cross examine the deponents. The denial of such opportunity goes to root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment order and renders it vulnerable. On a very fundamental aspect, the revenue was…

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)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] 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. Date of concluding the hearing : March 13, 2019 Date of pronouncing the orde…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1053/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke M/s Agrasen Agro Industries Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. 6 and 7, C-Block, Central Circle, Room No. 2nd Multimetals Ltd. Campus, 212, Floor, C.R. Kansua Road, Large Scale Building, Rawat Bhata Industrial Area, Kota. Road, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1053/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke M/s Agrasen Agro Industries Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. 6 and 7, C-Block, Central Circle, Room No. 2nd Multimetals Ltd. Campus, 212, Floor, C.R. Kansua Road, Large Scale Building, Rawat Bhata Industrial Area, Kota. Road, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: A…

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh jes'k lh 'kekZ] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1053/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2010-11 cuke M/s Agrasen Agro Industries Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Plot No. 6 and 7, C-Block, Central Circle, Room No. 2nd Multimetals Ltd. Campus, 212, Floor, C.R. Kansua Road, Large Scale Building, Rawat Bhata Industrial Area, Kota. Road, Kota. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: A…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. PAN No. AABPJ0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. ReenaJain, Deputy Commissioner of…

Mrs. Pooja Ramesh Bulani, Mumbai vs. I.T.O Ward 3 ( 2 ) Thane, Thane

In the result, appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1693/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Manish Kumar Singh
Section 132Section 147

…and books of account relating to third parties, the Assessing Officer has made the additions which are legally unsustainable. In support of his contention, learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:– i) H.R. Mehta v/s ACIT, [2016] 387 ITR 561; and ii) Anil Jaggi v/s ACIT, [2018] 168 ITD 612. 6. The learned Departmental Representative drawing our attention to the impugned assessment orders submitted, full opportunity was granted to the assessee in the course of assessment proceedings and the Assessing Officer has provided copy of seized documents to the assessee. Thus, he submitted, as…

Prity Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8245/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passe…

Nishank Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8244/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passe…

Prem Rattan Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8223/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Vishal Kashyap, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8221/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Kamlesh Rani, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 8218/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Smt. Kamlesh Rani, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Alpr0483C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Vishal Kashyap, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Bmypk9851L) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2014-15 Prem Rattan Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg5856G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Aashna Capital Services (P) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Aashna Capital Services (P) Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2), Ltd., New Delhi C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahca2030J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Nishank Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aaepg2238E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Prity Gupta, Vs. Ito, Ward 32(5), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Ahepg6510C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 1Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passe…

Rekha Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 43/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Ms. Rekha Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 55(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Rima Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7211/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Vinesh Maheshwari, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 61(3), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 7210/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Vinesh Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(3), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2940M) (Appellant) (Respondent) & Ay: 2015-16 Rima Maheswari, Vs. Ito, Ward 61(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm6735L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 68

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Surender Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-39(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8219/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Surender Kumar, Vs. Ito, Ward 39(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Afxpm2941L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…

Amit Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), New Delhi

In the result, the assessees’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2724/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2014-15 Amit Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 10(2), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aahpg2528C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69CSection 69c

…cross examination of the person on whose statement the AO relied upon, granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to denial of opportunity and consequently would be fatal to the proceedings. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bombay) has also considered the issue of not providing opportunity of cross examination in para 11 to 17 as under :- Thus the denial of opportunity to cross examine was considered by the Hon’ble High Court which goes to the root of the matter and strikes at the very foundation of the assessment and, therefore, renders the assessment order passed…