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

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Megahertz Systems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 5 (2) (2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2814/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhmegahertz Systems Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited, 251/253, Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(2) Tardeo Court, Opp. Swati Aayakar Bhavan, Snacks Tardeo Road Wrqh+C23, Maharshi Near Bhatia Hospital, Karve Road, New Marine Grant Road West, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aadcm8203F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ms. Indira Adakil Date Of Hearing 23.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Indira Adakil
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…P a g e | 1 Megahertz Systems Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2)(2) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Megahertz Systems Vs. Asst. Commissioner of Private Limited, 251/253, Income Tax, Circle 5(2)(2) Tardeo Court, Opp. Swati Aayakar Bhavan, Snacks Tardeo Road WRQH+C23, Maharshi Near Bhatia Hospital, Karve Road, New Marine Grant Road West, Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai – 400 020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No:AADCM8203F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Indira…

Samrat Finvestors Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 10(2), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 840/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2Nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [Pan : Aadcs4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri B.K. Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 27/06/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In The Instant Appeal Has Raised Two Effective Issues In The Various Grounds Before Us Which Are Summed Up As Under:- (I) That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.3,98,50,208/- As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Alleged Bogus Loss In Share Trading & In F&O Segment. (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.11,58,944/- As Made By The Assessing

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 250

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 840/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Samrat Finvestors Private Limited Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(2), 20/1, Maharshi Debendra Vs Kolkata 2nd Floor, Room No. 13A Kolkata - 700007 [PAN : AADCS4698G] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue by : Shri B.K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/12/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement:…

Nalanda 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 763/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [Pan : Aabcn7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/11/2022, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issues Raised In Ground Nos. 2 To 4 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Difference Between The Value Taken By The Assessee & The Fair Market Value (Fmv) U/S 50C Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That During The Year, The Assessee Sold Two Flats For An Aggregate Consideration Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- & Accordingly Addition Of Rs.3,26,37,314/- Was Made To The Income Of The Assessee. In 2

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/RFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 250Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 763/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Nalanda Builders Pvt. Ltd. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata 5, Sree Charan Sarani Vs Bally Howrah – 711201 (West Bengal) [PAN : AABCN7736Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, A/R Revenue by : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 30/11/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 11/01/2024 आदे…

ACIT, C.C-2(1), Kolkata. vs. Shalimar Nutrients Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 550/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 550/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Shalimar Nutrients Private Limited Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Kolkata Vs 17Th Floor, Suite No. 17A, B & C Everest House 46/C, Chowringhee Road Middleton Street Kolkata - 700071 [Pan: Aapcs1419M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K. Tulsyan, Fca Revenue By : Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/10/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/12/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Above Captioned Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Kolkata – 20, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out That There Is A Delay Of 1 Day In Filing The Present Appeal By The Revenue. Petition For Condonation Of Delay Is Placed On Record Explaining The Reasons. On Perusing The Same, We Are Convinced That The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause From Filing This Appeal In Time. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Admit The Appeal For Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, Addl. CIT, Sr. D/R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…addition on the basis of a witness examined at the back of the assessee, matter remanded for cross examination of the witness with opportunity to assessee to produce further evidence to rebut the aforesaid statement” (iii) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (Hon’ble Supreme Court Court) “…. IT is true that the proceedings under the IT law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and, therefore, it might be said that even without calling the manager of the bank in evidence to prove this letter, it could be taken into account as evidence. But, before the IT authorities could rely upon it, they…