ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-16 vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed assessment. He ITA No. 916/2015 & connected matters Page 9 of 14 referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh(1996) 3 SCC 525 where it was held that mere failure to produce a witness for cross-examination would not vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. One more opportunity was given to the Assessee to go before the AO for that purpose.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-16 vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed assessment. He ITA No. 916/2015 & connected matters Page 9 of 14 referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh(1996) 3 SCC 525 where it was held that mere failure to produce a witness for cross-examination would not vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. One more opportunity was given to the Assessee to go before the AO for that purpose.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-16 vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed assessment. He ITA No. 916/2015 & connected matters Page 9 of 14 referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh(1996) 3 SCC 525 where it was held that mere failure to produce a witness for cross-examination would not vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. One more opportunity was given to the Assessee to go before the AO for that purpose.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-16 vs. Jagat Talkies Distributors

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

…ed assessment. He ITA No. 916/2015 & connected matters Page 9 of 14 referred to the decision in CIT v. P.C. Chemicals (2013) 359 ITR 129 which in turn referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Income Tax Officer v. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). Mr. Hossain also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT, Shillong v. Jai Prakash Singh(1996) 3 SCC 525 where it was held that mere failure to produce a witness for cross-examination would not vitiate the entire assessment proceedings. One more opportunity was given to the Assessee to go before the AO for that purpose.…

Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vice-Assessment Year : 2003-04 Kailashpati Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, Ward 5(1), A-1/25, Sector-15, Rohini, New Delhi. Delhi. Pan : Aaack1244M

…nt of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries VS. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC). This was countered by the ld. DR who also relied on certain judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court including ITO VS. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC). 29. I am more convinced with the arguments of the ld. DR that non- granting of opportunity to cross-examine by the Assessing Officer is an irregularity which can be set right by making good such deficiency and giving opportunity of cross examination. The facts of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) are that the statements of two buyers wer…

M/S. Welco Sanitation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…essee that since the opportunity to cross- examine was not provided, the assessment be quashed cannot be accepted. However considering the judicial precedent as laid down in CIT vs Sunil Aggarwal [2015] 379 ITR 0367 (Delhi) and ITO vs M.Pirai Choodi [2011] 334 ITR 262 (SC) it is considered appropriate to set aside the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to provide the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine Sh. Rakesh Gupta whose statement has been relied upon by him and thereafter pass a speaking order in accordance with law. The opportunity so provided it is hoped is utilized…

Rajender Prashad Paliwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Sh. Rajender Prashad Paliwal, C/O- Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-25(4), Kapil Goel, Adv., A-1/25, Sector 15, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi Gir/Pan : Aampp9175D (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Ankit Gupta, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 29.06.2016

…was not adjudicated by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), holding the same as academic in nature. The learned Authorized Representative further placed reliance on the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. M Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262(SC), and submitted that additional ground may be admitted and the impugned order be set aside to the file of the learned Assessing Officer. On the contrary, the learned Sr. Departmental Representative could not 4. controvert the facts that the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) did not adjudicate upon the ground No. 2 of the assessee. 3…

DCIT Circle-6 (1), New Delhi vs. Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd, New Delhi

In the result this ground against addition u/s 68 of the Act is set aside to the A

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2004-05 Dy.Cit, Circle 6(1) Vs. M/S Lattu Finance & Investment Ltd. New Delhi (Now Known As Minda Investment Ltd.) 36 A, Rajasthan Udyog Nagar Delhi

…ld that no opportunity was given to the assessee to examine the witness or rebut the material gathered from the investors etc. and hence the same cannot be used against the assessee. 7. We observe that in the case of ITO vs. M.Pirai Choodi (2011) reported in 334 ITR 262 (SC) it was held that denial of opportunity to cross examine the witness by itself could not vitiate the assessment proceedings especially when the assessee has not asked for the same. In this case the assessee had not asked for cross examination of the witnesses. Hence the ground of the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue is bad in law. 8. In our view, ce…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sunil Aggarwal

The appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, with no order as to

…was given to the Assessee to cross-examine Mr. Sant Kumar Sharma, whose statement was the principal basis for making the addition of Rs. 1,38,41,971. 18. Mr. Singh has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in ITO v. M Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262(SC) to urge that denial of an opportunity to cross-examine by itself could not vitiate the assessment proceedings particularly when the Assessee had not raised a demand to that effect before the AO. He submitted that in the present case, it was recorded by the AO himself that despite sufficient opportunities, the Assessee did not cooperate.…