Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713Supreme Court of India1980#46 most cited

What is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

962

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT · 125 ITR 713 · natural justice · cross-examination · evidence · third party statement · retracted statement · opportunity to rebut · assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 148Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bbsection 292cretracted statementdumb documentssection 132(4a)on-moneyloose papersdocuments seizedlive linksection 34section 69bsection 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…al part and parcel of the principles of natural justice. Cross-examination is must where Assessing Officer relies upon only on the statement of the Third Party unconnected with the appellant 29. In the case of Krishna Chand Chela Ram v. CIT reported in (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Supreme Court has held that “cross-examination is must where Assessing Officer relies upon only on the statement of the Third Party unconnected with the appellant. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the letters, dated 14.02.1955 and 09.03.1959, did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could legitimately taken into acc…

Deputy Commissioner of Income -Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad vs. Sanjay Prataprai Mehta, Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri
Section 10(38)Section 271(1)(c)

…cross-examination which is against the principles of natural justice as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006. Likewise, the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 held that the income tax authorities before relying upon any material are required to provide such material to the assessee for rebuttable. The relevant observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court is extracted as under: It is true that the proceedings under the income-tax law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and, therefore, it might be…

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 4062/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am Ravi Gopal Trivedy 402, Sheetal, A Wing, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan : Abсрт1927А Ι.Τ.Α. No. 4062/Mum/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Vs. National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi Appellant) Respondent) Appellant/Assessee By Dr. K. Shivaram A/W Mr. Shashi Bekal, Ca Revenue/Respondent By Shri R.R. Makwana, Jcit Date Of Hearing 23.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 Order Per Padmavathy S, Am: This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short 'The Cit(A)] Dated 16.10.2023 For The Ay 2013-14. The Assessee Raised The Following Revised Grounds: 2

Section 143(1)Section 148

…reassessment done without providing proper information to the assessee is not valid. The ld. AR in this regard relied on the following decisions: (i) Mohan Thakur Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 1434-37/Mum/2018 dated 01.03.2021. (ii) Kishin Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). 4. The ld. AR submitted that the reasons recorded are on the basis of incorrect information and without application of mind. In this regard the ld. AR drew our attention to the submission made before the AO/CIT(A) wherein the assessee has made a suo-moto declaration matching the alleged sale value with one of the transactions entered into b…

Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1124/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Smt. Lilaben Rameshbhai The Dy.Cit Savaliya Vs Central Circle-1(1) Legal Heir Of Rameshbhai Ahmedabad N.Savaliya 12, Paritosh Bungalows Satellite Ahmedabad – 380 015 Pan: Abjps 1312 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay R. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 22/02/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/04/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra Kamblethis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18/01/2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: 1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad Has Erred In Law & On Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Made By The Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir Of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148

…13) 352 ITR 480 (SC) (ii) Principal CIT vs. Saumya Construction (2016) 387 ITR 529 P.Ltd. (Guj.) (iii) DCIT (Asst.) vs. Prarthana Construction (Tax appeal No.79 of Pvt.Ltd. 2000 dated 25/03/2011 (High Court of Gujarat) (iv) Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 5.2. The ld.Counsel for the assessee further submitted that during the course of survey, in the statement recorded from Shri Paresh Hiralal Modi, the said person stated that work of documentation of land purchased by Smt.Lilaben Rameshbhai .Savaliya Legal Heir of Shri Rameshbhai N. Savaliya Asst.Year 2010-11 Thakkar Group of Kerala and Rup…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…es of statements obtained under sections 131 or 132(4) should necessarily be furnished to the assessee. If the same have not been furnished it means that the same have not been relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 has held that evidence to be used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should be given to the assessee else it cannot be used and no adverse inference can be drawn on such material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on th…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…es of statements obtained under sections 131 or 132(4) should necessarily be furnished to the assessee. If the same have not been furnished it means that the same have not been relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 has held that evidence to be used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should be given to the assessee else it cannot be used and no adverse inference can be drawn on such material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on th…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…es of statements obtained under sections 131 or 132(4) should necessarily be furnished to the assessee. If the same have not been furnished it means that the same have not been relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 has held that evidence to be used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should be given to the assessee else it cannot be used and no adverse inference can be drawn on such material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on th…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…es of statements obtained under sections 131 or 132(4) should necessarily be furnished to the assessee. If the same have not been furnished it means that the same have not been relied upon. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 has held that evidence to be used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and an opportunity to confront should be given to the assessee else it cannot be used and no adverse inference can be drawn on such material. Page 33 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.30 He placed reliance on th…

ACIT, Central Circle- 19, New Delhi vs. Sharp Corp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6188/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Ms Astha Chandraacit, Vs. M/S. Sharp Corp Ltd, Plot No. 9, 1St Floor Sagar Central Circle-19, New Delhi Centre, Gujrawalan Town, Delhi- 110009 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaco0036B

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Bindal, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 44A

…hases and sales. That without such opportunity of cross-examination it is legally untenable to use such statement to come to an adverse conclusion against the assessee. i) The Apex Court has held in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT reported in (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) as under:- Though the proceedings under the Income-tax Act are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert and cross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. Opportunity of cross examination must be given. The consequence of breach of natural justice is…

Snr Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 937/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 292CSection 68Section 69C

…nt has not been named by any of the persons referred to by the Ld. AO for indulging in accommodation entries and the evidences therefore, cannot be used against the assessee in view of the judgment in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT, Bombay City-II, 125 ITR 713 (SC). 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that none of the evidences collected by the Ld. AO were confronted to the assessee during the course of the assessment. No opportunity was given to the appellant to rebut or cross examine the same, which is against the principles of natural justice. 6. That the assessment proceedings having been c…

ITO, Ward- 22(2), New Delhi vs. Saivi Finance Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

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

ITA 3886/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…aterial/statement etc. will be rendered on unreliable and additions made on the basis of such material/statement etc. shall be rendered illegal. Reference in this regard can be made to the decisions in the case of R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad 176 ITR 169 (SC), 125 ITR 713 (SC), Jindal Vegetable (order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA no. 428 of 2007, 174 Taxman 440 (Raj.) and Laxman Bhal Patel (order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 22.07.2008 in ITR no. 41/1997). 4.3.5. Further, in the case of N.P. Garodia (order dated 13.01.2009 of Hon'ble P & H High Court in ITA no. 808 of 2008). In the case of Brij Pal Sh…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 500/JPR/2023[215-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…letion of assessment without considering the assessee’s contention and without providing any opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence or cross examine any evidence is bad in law as held in following decisions:  Kishinchand Chellaram –vs.- CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) [Income-tax authorities is bound to produce evidence relied upon so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it]  CIT -vs.- Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (2008) 215 CTR 489 (Raj): When none of the witnesses were examined before the A.O., and assessee did not have any opportunity to cross examine the statements given by the witn…

Shree Cement Limited, Beawar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle -2, Ajmer

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

ITA 496/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: or at the time of hearing of this appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Dilip B Desai(C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Alka Gautam (CIT) (V.H) &
Section 115JSection 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xvi)Section 80Section 80I

…letion of assessment without considering the assessee’s contention and without providing any opportunity to the appellant to produce evidence or cross examine any evidence is bad in law as held in following decisions:  Kishinchand Chellaram –vs.- CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) [Income-tax authorities is bound to produce evidence relied upon so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it]  CIT -vs.- Bhanwarlal Murwatiya (2008) 215 CTR 489 (Raj): When none of the witnesses were examined before the A.O., and assessee did not have any opportunity to cross examine the statements given by the witn…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 369/JPR/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…een Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585- 591) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving a…

Ram Dhan Yadav, Chomu Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Feb 2024AY 2007-2008

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Soni (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69B

…een Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of KishinchandChellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585- 591) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving a…

Lovely Promoters Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 770/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: him regarding non mentioning of Document Identification Number (DIN) in the body of the order u/s. 127 of the Act dated 08-09-2021 and various other technical pleas raised in grounds of appeal regarding validity of notice u/s. 148 of the Act, thereby appellate order passed by the CIT(A) is non-speaking order and deserves to be quashed. 4. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in issuing notice u/s. 148 of the Act as it was a search related case u/s. 132 r/w

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Taparia (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT) a
Section 127Section 127(1)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 153C

…adversely affected. • CIT vs. J.M.D. Communications P. Ltd. 320 ITR (St.) 17 (SC) If the AO wants to use some statement made before him, then on request by the Appellant, is bound to put the deponent for cross-examination. Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) "...the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert andcross examine the evidence on which the department places its reliance. Opportunity of cross examination must be given." The summary of submissions is as under: (i) The appellant does not have any bogus capital gains/loss reflected in the return of income and neither does…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…ade on the basis of such material/statement etc. shall be rendered illegal. Reference in this regard can be made from the decisions made in the following judiciary ruling:-  R.B. ShreeramDurga Prasad 176 ITR 169 (SC),  KishanChandChellaram Vs. C.I.T. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)  Jindal Vegetable (order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA no. 428 of 2007, 174 Taxmann 440 (Raj.)  LaxmanBhai Patel (order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 22.07.2008 in ITR no. 41/1997). Page No. 66 Udayan Grover 11. Shri Jagdish Purohit was never a DIRECTOR as well as SHAREHOLDER of lender companies. from whom the respondent compan…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 805/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment KishanChadnChellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Online ITAT 11821 and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2018 SCC Online ITAT 2891, held as follows:- ''It is tru…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 804/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment KishanChadnChellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Online ITAT 11821 and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2018 SCC Online ITAT 2891, held as follows:- ''It is tru…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 803/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment KishanChadnChellaram reported in 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s.Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd., reported in 2012 SCC Online ITAT 11821 and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2018 SCC Online ITAT 2891, held as follows:- ''It is tru…