ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

334 ITR 262Supreme Court of India2011#428 most cited

What is ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi authority for?

If an assessee was denied an adequate opportunity of being heard, including the right to cross-examine a witness, the assessment should be set aside and restored for fresh adjudication after affording due opportunity, even if the assessee failed to appear at an appellate stage. The Tribunal, in the interest of justice, should ensure such matters are re-adjudicated.

211

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 382,409 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi · natural justice · opportunity of being heard · right to cross-examine witness · assessment restoration · fresh adjudication · Tribunal powers · Section 143(3) · Section 147 · Section 133(6) · Supreme Court

Also reported as

20 Taxmann.com 733

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 37(1)Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 153ASection 68

Issues it is cited on

survey under section 133astatement under section 132(4)violation of natural justicesection 158share application moneysearch assessmentservice of noticeaccommodation entrysection 133section 133aincome-tax officersection 133(6)

Judgments citing ITO v. M. Pirai Choodi

Daya Bansal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7806/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Amitabh Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7804/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

Anjul Bansal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 46(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7802/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuay: 2015-16 Amitabh Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Actpb6786D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Anjul Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 46(4), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Allpb6364J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Ay: 2015-16 Daya Bansal, Vs. Ito, Ward 48(1), C/O Kapil Goel, Advocate, New Delhi F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi (Pan: Aalpb6363R) (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 10(38)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69C

…f the Bombay stock exchange/ NSE and various other people as were mentioned in the assessment order is fatal to the assessment made by the assessing officer. We are also conscious of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in case of M. Pirai Choodi vs. ITO 334 ITR 262, wherein the Hon‘ble Supreme Court while considering the decision of the Hon‘ble MP High Court in 302 ITR 40 has held that not granting an opportunity of cross- examination to the assessee is merely an regularity and therefore the High Court was not correct in cancelling the order of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, Hon‘ble Supreme Court th…

ITO 6(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Amirashmi Finstock P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3164/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer M/S Amirashmi Finstock 6(1)(2), R. No. 508, 5Th Pvt. Ltd. 205, Kailash Vs. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, V B Lane, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- 400020. 400077. Pan No. Aaica2050R Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 279/Mum/2018 (Ita No. 3164/Mum/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Amirashmi Finstock Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 205, Kailash 6(1)(2), R. No. 508, 5Th Vs. Plaza, V B Lane, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400077. 400020. Pan No. Aaica2050R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Satish Chandra Rajore, Dr Assessee By : Mr. Atin S. Mehta, Ar Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/01/2019

For Appellant: Mr. Atin S. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Satish Chandra Rajore, DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (VICE PRESIDENT) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Income Tax Officer M/s Amirashmi Finstock 6(1)(2), R. No. 508, 5th Pvt. Ltd. 205, Kailash Vs. floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Plaza, V B Lane, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai- 400020. 400077. PAN No. AAICA2050R Appellant Respondent C.O. No. 279/MUM/2018 (ITA No. 3164/MUM/2017) Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Amirashmi Finstock Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. 205, Kailash 6(1)(2), R. No. 508, 5th Vs. Plaza, V B Lane, floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ghatkopar…

Sharmistha Mafatia Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(2)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1780/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kochar, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sharmista Mafatlal Mehta, Income Tax Officer-22(2)(3), 404, Rekha Apartment, Mumbai बनाम/ Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar(W) Vs. Mumbai-400086 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Afapm1923P

Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ,जी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “G”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, उपा"य" एवं "ी रिमत कोचर, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, VICE PRESIDENT, and Shri Ramit Kochar, Accountant Member, Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sharmista Mafatlal Mehta, Income Tax Officer-22(2)(3), 404, Rekha Apartment, Mumbai बनाम/ Amrut Nagar, Ghatkopar(W) Vs. Mumbai-400086 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AFAPM1923P "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri Amit C. Jhaveri राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh- DR 17/10/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of…

Hamsons Laboratories P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT(OSD) RG 8(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2558/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Sandeep Gosain (Jm)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” Bench, Mumbai Before S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) & Sandeep Gosain (JM) I.T.A. No. 2558/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year 2011-12) Hamsons Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. ACIT 10(1)(1) 12, Hornby View Building Vs. (erstwhile DCIT- Gunbow Street, Fort 8(2) Mumbai-40001. Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road PAN No. AAACH1550P Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Dharmesh Shah Department by Shri Rajore Satishchandra R. Date of Hearing 16.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement 16.10.2018 O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :- The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 21-0…

ACIT, Circle- 5(2), New Delhi vs. Century Metal Recycling Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and Cross Objection filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 6657/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri T.S. Kapooray: 2009-10 Acit, Circle-5(2), M/S Century Metal New Delhi Vs. Recycling Pvt. Ltd., W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 36/Del/2018 (In Ita No. 6657/Del/2017) Ay: 2009-10 M/S Century Metal Acit, Circle-5(2), Recycling Pvt. Ltd., Vs. New Delhi W-5/6, Western Avenue, Sainik Farm, New Delhi – 110 080 (Pan: Aaacb3682J) (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv., ShFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh,CIT(DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…results shown by the appellant. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO of Rs.13,19,00,275/- is liable to deleted. Grounds nos.9 to 11 of the appeal are allowed. 16 The ld. DR has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of ITO v. Pirai Choori 334 ITR 262 wherein it has held that absence of cross examination cannot be made the basis of deletion of an addition. 17 In the case of G.R. Kalra HUF v. ITO in ITA No. 6564/D/2013 for Assessment year 1999-00 dated 12.4.2017 it has been held as under “……21. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of C…

Jitesh Ashok Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 32(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1465/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jitesh Ashok Jain B-16, Income Tax Officer Chawl No. 4, Kamla Pandey Vs. Ward-32(2)(1), C-11, Society Pandey Nagar, 3Rd Floor, Pratyakshkar Rawal Pana, Dahisar (East) Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400068. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-500051. Pan No. Akspj6486D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Dharmesh Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. C.S. Gulati, Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/07/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. C.S. Gulati, DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Jitesh Ashok Jain B-16, Income Tax Officer Chawl No. 4, Kamla Pandey Vs. Ward-32(2)(1), C-11, Society Pandey Nagar, 3rd Floor, Pratyakshkar Rawal Pana, Dahisar (East) Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Mumbai-400068. Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-500051. PAN No. AKSPJ6486D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dharmesh Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. C.S. Gulati, DR Date of Hearing : 11/07/2018 Date of pronouncement : 18/07/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM…

Akash Purochem P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 504/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akash Purochem Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 1/5, Kandhari Colony, 2Nd 10(2)(1), Aayakar Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 400071. Churchgate, Mumbai. Pan No. Aacca9261A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, Ar Revenue By : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/05/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Parikh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “I” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Akash Purochem Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer- 1/5, Kandhari Colony, 2nd 10(2)(1), Aayakar Vs. Road, Chembur, Mumbai- Bhavan, M.K. Marg, 400071. Churchgate, Mumbai. PAN No. AACCA9261A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Sanjay Parikh, AR Revenue by : Mr. Anoop Hiwase, DR Date of Hearing : 09/05/2018 Date of pronouncement : 16/05/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Shraddha Constructions & Power Generation Pvt. Ltd., Pune

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

ITA 461/PUN/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.570/Pun/2015 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 132Section 132(4)

…oncerned person before addition is made. Asking for deletion of the said addition fully, Ld. Counsel relied on the following judgments/decisions : a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT - Civil Appeal No. 4228/2006, dated 02-09-2015 b. ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi 334 ITR 262 (SC) c. Anita Agarwal Vs. ITO – ITA No.2622/PN/2016 19. Ld. Counsel submitted that the entire addition made by the AO on this issue should be deleted. Further referring to seized papers, Ld. Counsel submitted that the payments of cash made to the farmers for buying 472 acres are evidenced by the vouchers and the same amounts for only Rs.1,82,…

Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Bhiwandi vs. ACIT Cir. 1, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 5052/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Asst. Commissioner Of Vishnu Compound, Vs. Income Tax Circle-1, Assbibi, Kalyan Road, Kalyan. Bhiwandi-421302 Pan No. Aatpb1608A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. S.M. Makhija, Ar Revenue By : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. Makhija, ARFor Respondent: Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Ajay Narayan Bhoir, Asst. Commissioner of Vishnu Compound, Vs. Income Tax Circle-1, Assbibi, Kalyan Road, Kalyan. Bhiwandi-421302 PAN No. AATPB1608A Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. S.M. Makhija, AR Revenue by : Mr. V. Vidhyadhar, DR Date of Hearing : 03/04/2018 Date of pronouncement : 25/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is directed agai…

Jivanlal Corporation, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 2019/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/S Jivanlal Corporation Ito-13(3)(2) [Now 409, Western Edge-Ii, Western 17(2)(1)] Vs. Exp. Highway, Borivali (East), Mumbai. Mumbai-400066. Pan No. Aacfj3353K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Bhupendra Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Arju Garodia, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/04/2018

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Garodia, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s Jivanlal Corporation ITO-13(3)(2) [now 409, Western Edge-II, Western 17(2)(1)] Vs. exp. Highway, Borivali (East), Mumbai. Mumbai-400066. PAN No. AACFJ3353K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Bhupendra Shah, AR Revenue by : Ms. Arju Garodia, DR Date of Hearing : 07/03/2018 Date of pronouncement : 11/04/2018 ORDER PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2011-12. The appeal is direct…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2630/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2629/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Sanjay Shrawan Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2628/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2627/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2626/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Shrawan Keshavlal Agrawal HUF, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2625/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Anita Sanjay Agrawal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2624/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…

Anita Sanjay Agrawal, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2623/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2622 To 2624/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Agrawal
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…Assessing Officer in paras 8 and 8.1 of the assessment order. He then stressed that no cross-examination was asked by the assessee after he received the statement. He relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITO Vs. M. Pirai Choodi (2011) 334 ITR 262 (SC), wherein it was held that in case the assessment order has been passed without granting an opportunity to cross-examine, then the matter should be set aside to the ITA Nos.2622 to 2630/PUN/2016 Assessing Officer to grant the assessee an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He further relied on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay…