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.

How many judgments cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT?

962 judgments on BharatTax cite Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713), spanning 2013 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 132, Section 153A, Section 153C, Section 148.

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713)

Ghevarchand M. Surana, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 2641/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sshrighevarchand.M.Surana Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), 203, B-3, Sector-4, Ashar It Park, Mira Road (E), 6Th Floor, Road No. Thane-401107, 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra. Industrial Estate, Thane-400604. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aajps6676B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Shashank Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Joginder Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…) r.w.s. 147 without providing any opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses or documents relied upon by the Ld. Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the cases of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006). 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the LdNational Faceless Assessment Centre - CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action Ld. assessing officer of disallowing the purchases of Rs. 12,31,117/- by arbitrarily ignoring various submi…

Sanjay Madanraj Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT 32(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1502/MUM/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms Padmavathy Ssanjay Madanrajshah, Acit – 32(3) 316, New Link Way Kautilya Bhavan, बनाम/ Estate, Near Chincholi Bkc Complex, Vs. Fire Brigade, Bandra (E), Malad (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400064. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajcps1858H (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri. Prakash Jhunjhunwala.ARFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj kumar Sinha.DR

Section 68Section 69C

…nts could not be admissible in evidence against the assessee. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Assessee squarely apply to this proposition. I also rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee also pointed-out from the assessment order that A.O. recorded balance-sheet and P & L A/c of M/s. Jackson Investment Ltd., and their figures of income and net worth for several years to show that the said Company was declaring the profit as well as having net worth. Considering the above discussion, the deci…

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1588/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajeya Kumar Ojha, D.R

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…r information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the transaction of the sale of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. as bogus and sham and has erred in…

ITO, War4D-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4774/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 68

…was recorded during assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the Ld. AO could not rely on the impugned statement to draw any adverse inference against the appellant as decided by the Hon hie Supreme Court as under:- i) Kishmichand Chella Ram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) “It will, therefore, be seen that, even if we assume that this letter was in fact addressed by the manager of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. to the ITO, no reliance could be placed upon it, since it was not shown to the assessee until at the stage of the preparation of the supplemental statement of the case and no opportunity to cross - exam…

ITO, Ward- 19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Engineering Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4773/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. V. K. Agarwal, AR &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 68

…was recorded during assessment proceedings. Under the circumstances, the Ld. AO could not rely on the impugned statement to draw any adverse inference against the appellant as decided by the Hon hie Supreme Court as under:- i) Kishmichand Chella Ram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) “It will, therefore, be seen that, even if we assume that this letter was in fact addressed by the manager of the Punjab National Bank Ltd. to the ITO, no reliance could be placed upon it, since it was not shown to the assessee until at the stage of the preparation of the supplemental statement of the case and no opportunity to cross - exam…

DCIT, Central Circle Ajmer, Ajmer vs. Puja Synthetics Private Limited, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 87/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh Soni (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)

Section 115JSection 153ASection 263

…ts (p.) Ltd. 216 CTR 195 (SC)  CIT vs. Morani Automatives (p.) Ltd. (2014) 264 CTR 86 ( Raj.H.C.)  CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal (2014) 366 ITR 217 (Raj)  M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)  Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)  CIT vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda (2018) 100 taxmann.com 526 (SC) 29 DCIT vs. Puja Synthetics Pvt. Ltd.  Pr. CIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2023) 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC)  Pr. CIT vs. Meeta Gutgutia (2018) 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC)  Jai Steel (India) vs. ACT (2013) 36 taxmann.com 523 (Raj. H.C.)  CIT vs. Dr. S. Muralidhar and Vidhu Bakh…

Shri Chetas Karamshi Nandu, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward-22(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1589/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhchetas Karmshi Nandu Vs. Ito 22(1)(3) B/304, Jay Apartment, Room No. 314, 3 Rd Floor, Nehru Road, Piramal Chambers, Parel Mumbai-400055 Mumbai-400012 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aijpn0030C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri. Prakash Kishinchandani

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…e material or information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in treating the transaction of the sale of shares of M/s Sunrise Asian Ltd. as bogus and sham and has erred in…

Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd., Rajnandgaon vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 69/RPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.69/Rpr/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Touchstone Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mangal Deep, G.E. Road, Raipur-1. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aacct6932F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R.B Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Debashis Lahiri, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/09/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 18/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am :

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Debashis Lahiri, CIT-DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263

…Pr. CIT but still Id. Pr. CIT did not provide copy in the revision proceedings also. The Ld. AR with respect to statement of Amit Kedia which is liable to be ignored had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (ii) Smt. Shardaben B. Patel Vs Pr. CIT (2020) 180 ITD 328 (Ahd.) 11. With respect to the burden u/s.68 of the Act and the same was discharged by the assessee, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that documents like confirmation, ITR, Balance sheet, profit and loss account, bank statement etc. were filed before the A.O as well as Pr. CIT, howeve…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J B Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…1-12 J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd. 21. Further, the facts of the case are also squarely covered by binding decisions in jurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court listed below: Sr Particulars No 1. Kishinchand Chellaram v/s CIT 125 ITR 713] [SC] 2. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [216 CTR 0195 (SC)] 3. CIT vs. Steller Investment Ltd. [251 ITR 263 (SC)] 4. PCIT VS. Hi Tech Residency [2018] 96 taxmann.com 402 (SC)) 5. PCIT vs. Hi Tech Residency [2018] 93 taxmann.com 403 (Bom HC)) 6. PCIT vs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Ltd. SLP no. 12644/2018 (SC)] 7. PCITvs. Paradise Inland Shipping Pvt Lt…

Ketan Jayant Shah, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Thane

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

ITA 568/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

Section 10(38)Section 68

…ing opportunity of cross examination and in this regard, he placed reliance on 4 Ketan Jayant Shah the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, Kolkata (281 CTR 241)(SC), Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713)(SC). 6. The Ld CIT(A) did not accept the contentions of the assessee. He placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj (IA No. GA/2/2022 in ITA/6/2022) and confirmed the order passed by the AO. The assessee is aggrieved. 7. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee has furnished all evi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 297/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.297/Srt/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Income-Tax, Circle-2, Surat, Vs. K-801, River View Heights, Room No.503, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Pedar Road, Mota Varachha, Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Surat-394101 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb 0820 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin K Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B. Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

…oviding opportunity of cross examinations of persons, whose statement has been relied upon for making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. We also note that not allowing the assessee to cross examine the witness by the adjudicating authority though the statements of those witn…

D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Dibrugarh vs. Vinod Bamalwa, Dibrugarh

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and that of the Cross Objections of the assessees are allowed

ITA 66/GTY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati01 Sept 2023AY 2013-14