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

Parshwa Printpack Pvt. Ltd., Surendranagar vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Surendranagar

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

ITA 248/RJT/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot29 Mar 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Parth Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

…the basis of which the court can act.......". So far as criminal cases are concerned the right to cross examination is a constitutional right whereas in civil proceedings, it is a principle emanating from due process In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (1980) Hon'ble Apex Court while emphasizing upon !he need of cross examination Have also held that "..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 said that even without calling the manager of the bank in evidence to prove this letter, it could be taken into…

Shaleen Prasad, Noida vs. ITO Ward - 52(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal is partly allowed on merits

ITA 1620/DEL/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs. 19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

Shabnam Mansoori, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 883/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Gargassessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Shabnam Mansoori, Ito Ward-2(3), H-15, Gali No. 18, Block-H, Ghaziabad. Jagatpuri, Krishna Nagar, Vs. Delhi Pan Dbipm7096G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ankit Gupta, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 132(4)

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

Suresh Chand Tyagi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4135/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 132(4)

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

Suresh Chand Tyagi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4134/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Srivastava, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr DR
Section 132(4)

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Skyway Infra Projects Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed, whereas appeals of the revenue are par...

ITA 2665/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 & Assessment Year: 2015-16 & Assessment Year: 2016-17 & Assessment Year: 2017-18 & Assessment Year: 2018-19 & Assessment Year: 2019-20 & Assessment Year: 2020-21

…ivate inquiries made by the ITO meet the substance of any private inquiries made by the ITO if it is intended to make the esti nded to make the estimate on the foot of those mate on the foot of those enquiries…” In the case of KishinchandChellaramv CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 KishinchandChellaramv CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 KishinchandChellaramv CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: “….The letters, dated 14 The letters, dated 14-2-1955 and 9-3-1959 ENT ITR 713 1959 ENT ITR 713, did not constitute did not constitute any materi…

Shiv Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-57(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4329/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Kirti Sankratyayan, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Minimed Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3585/MUM/2019[A.Y- 2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2023

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Rahul Chaudhary (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…the Assessee, the same cannot be used against the Assessee and such an assessment order based on such material must necessarily be quashed. Similar position in law has been explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713. The appellant was not given any access to the material (reports, intimations, statement etc.) used against it. By withholding the said material, the AO has denied to the appellant an opportunity to refute the evidence by cross examining the witnesses, statements, if any made by whom, incriminated the appellant. In view of these facts, such state…

Rakesh Kumar Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Cercle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2516/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…l more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 completion of assessment. Reliance was placed on the followin…

Geeta Bansal, Gujrat vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 2515/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2515/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Geeta Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Aispb9075G अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent & आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2516/Del/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Rakesh Kumar Bansal Dcit Ch. No. 206-207, Vs. Central Circle Ansal Satyam Rdc, Ghaziabad. Rajnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002 Pan No. Abwpb1370M अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 292CSection 69

…l more so when such material is itself vague/unreliable. Reliance was placed on the following decisions: 1. Common Cost Vs. Union of India (UOI) [394 ITR 220] (SC); 2. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE [281 CTR 241] (SC); 3. Kishan Chand Challa Ram Vs. CIT [125 ITR 713] (SC); 4. CIT Vs. Sunita Dudda [100 Taxmann.com 526] (SC). 15. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the assessment framed u/s 153C of the Act is bad in law as no notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee before I.T.A.Nos.2515 & 2516/Del/2022 completion of assessment. Reliance was placed on the followin…

DCIT Cent. Cir-2(3), Mumbai vs. Soma Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1824/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 143(3)

…is a settled principle that information collected by the department cannot be made use of against the assessee unless witnesses are cross examined by the assessee. We place reliance on the Apex court decision in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC). In the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC), the Apex Court observed that not allowing the assessee to crossexamine the adverse witnesses whose statement has been relied upon to frame the order is a serious flaw. This makes the order a nullity. I…

Parmesh Construction Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 346/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 37(1)Section 68

…armesh Construction Co. in the assessment order. In view of such facts, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee and for the said proposition we place reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the Kishnichand Chellaram. CIT 125 ITR 713. 14. As to the observations of the authorities below that the evidences do not inspire confident regarding the credit capacity of the creditors, it is seen that total net-worth of the lender namely M/s Ablaze Tour and Travels Pvt. Ltd. was to the tune of Rs. 68.99 Crores, which is far more than the amount advanced by the said company. Similarly,…

Santosh, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 37(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1696/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhrysantosh Vs. Ito 190-191, 2Nd Floor, Ward – 37(1) Pocket-2, Sector – 22, New Delhi Rohini, New Delhi- 110085 Pan No. Dcaps 8853 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Subhash Singhal, C.A. Revenue By Shri B. M. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 30.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.02.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :-

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151

…percentage to be adopted as income of deposits. 8. Evidence collected behind the back of the assessee was never given to the assessee for comments/explanation. Use thereof against the assessee in order is against the established view in Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and there is no other evidence on ITO file to justify the addition so made. 9. No notice u/s 143(2) has been issued by the AO which as per Apex Court decision in Hotel Blue Moon is essential and necessary pre- condition to make assessment u/s 144/143(3) or so. In absence thereof the asst. so made be annulled. 10. the notice u/s 148 is dated…

M/S Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai-400021 vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax-3(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is disposed off as being partly allowed

ITA 1074/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Anish Thacker &
Section 143(3)Section 199Section 44

…e of Smt. Mrudulaben B. Patel v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 85 ITD 463 (Ahd.) (SMC), the question was whether any part undisclosed income of a company received by director could be said to be income chargeable to tax. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 640 (SC), the question was whether payment made as dividend by a company to its shareholders would lose the character of dividend merely because it was paid out of capital. In all these cases there existed share capital of company as well as shareholders. Thus, the facts of those cases were entirely different from the present case inasmuch as in the p…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 105/RJT/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…is own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 104/RJT/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…is own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann…

Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai Patel, Jamnagar vs. The ITO Ward-3(2), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 103/RJT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot25 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 103 To 105/Rjt/2021 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Shri Kanjibhai Tapubhai The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Patel Ward 3(2), Jamnagar Vs. Plot No.3990, Gidc, Phase-Iii, Dared, Jamnagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpp6152H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से / Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. D.R. Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 01/11/2022 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 25/01/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: This Bunch Of Three Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 28.07.2021 (For A.Ys. 2008-09 & 2011-12) & 27.07.2021 (For A.Y. 2010-11) Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 143(3)Section 147

…is own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (f) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann…

M/S. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalroe vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

…ities should be given to the assessee in order to lead any evidence that the assessee may feel necessary to rebut the case against him. As a result we decline to answer the question.” (O). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) held as follows:- “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, (i) on the facts, that the two letters dated February 18, 1955 , and March 9, 1957 did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could take into account for the purpose of arriving at the finding that the sum of Rs.1,07,350 was remitted by the assessee from Mad…

Anil Kumar Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 61(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 732/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 68

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

Anil Kumar Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 61(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed, as indicated

ITA 1366/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 147Section 68

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…