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)

DCIT, Bangalore vs. M/S Ind- Sing Developers (P) Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 203/BANG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…12 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 71 no opportunity of cross examination of him has been provided by AO in respect of specific request by assessee’s side. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), wherein it was held that “evidence collected from the witness cannot be considered without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee”. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, (i) on the facts, that the two letters dated February 18, 1955 , and March 9,…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 109/BANG/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…12 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 71 no opportunity of cross examination of him has been provided by AO in respect of specific request by assessee’s side. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), wherein it was held that “evidence collected from the witness cannot be considered without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee”. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, (i) on the facts, that the two letters dated February 18, 1955 , and March 9,…

M/S Ind Sing Developers Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 108/BANG/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: CA Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Dilip, Standing Counsel

Section 132Section 139Section 153A

…12 M/s. Ind Sing Developers Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 20 of 71 no opportunity of cross examination of him has been provided by AO in respect of specific request by assessee’s side. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), wherein it was held that “evidence collected from the witness cannot be considered without giving an opportunity of cross examination to the assessee”. In the aforesaid case the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “Held, reversing the decision of the High Court, (i) on the facts, that the two letters dated February 18, 1955 , and March 9,…

Dev Synthetics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 220/AHD/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Astha ManiarFor Respondent: Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

…t Singh Suri (2013) 215 Taxman 581 (Guj) iv) H R Mehta vs. ACIT 387 ITR 561 (Bom) v) Marudhar Polycot (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No. 301/Ahd/2018 vi) Arceli Reality Ltd. vs. ITO in ITA No. 6492/Mum/2016 (Mum. Tri.) vii) Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) viii) Appropriate Authority vs. Vijay Kumar Sharma 249 ITR 554 (SC) ix) Heirs & LHS of Late Laxmanbhai Patel vs. CIT 327 ITR 290 (Guj) x) CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del.) xi) CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.) xii) CIT vs. Geetanjali Education Society 174 Taxman 440 (Raj.) The Ld. AR further submitted that witho…

Nishat Ara, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 65/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ourt and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 2) Meneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 AIR 597d (SC) 3) NDTV Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 116 Taxman.com 151 (SC) 4) Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT 293 ITR 656 (All) 2.4 As regards the documentary evidences, filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, our attention was invited to various pages of the paper books where the documents…

Zain Alam, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- II, Kanpur

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

ITA 64/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ourt and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 2) Meneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 AIR 597d (SC) 3) NDTV Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 116 Taxman.com 151 (SC) 4) Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT 293 ITR 656 (All) 2.4 As regards the documentary evidences, filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, our attention was invited to various pages of the paper books where the documents…

Nausheen Farah, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 63/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ourt and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 2) Meneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 AIR 597d (SC) 3) NDTV Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 116 Taxman.com 151 (SC) 4) Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT 293 ITR 656 (All) 2.4 As regards the documentary evidences, filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, our attention was invited to various pages of the paper books where the documents…

Shaheen Rabia, Kanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -II, Kanpur

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

ITA 62/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ourt and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 2) Meneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 AIR 597d (SC) 3) NDTV Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 116 Taxman.com 151 (SC) 4) Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT 293 ITR 656 (All) 2.4 As regards the documentary evidences, filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, our attention was invited to various pages of the paper books where the documents…

Marghoob Alam, Kanpur vs. Dcut, CC-II, Kanpur

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

ITA 61/LKW/2021[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Jul 2022AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…ourt and jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad for the proposition that before using material against the assessee, the income tax authorities are bound to provide an opportunity to the assessee to cross examine such persons: 1) Kishin Chand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, 4 Taxman 29 (SC) 2) Meneka Gandhi vs. UOI 1978 AIR 597d (SC) 3) NDTV Ltd. vs. DCIT [2020] 116 Taxman.com 151 (SC) 4) Motilal Padampat Udyog Ltd. vs. CIT 293 ITR 656 (All) 2.4 As regards the documentary evidences, filed by the assessee before the Assessing Officer, our attention was invited to various pages of the paper books where the documents…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Suresh Gurubuxsing Wadhwa, Navi Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 78/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: Amol B. Kirtane

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153Section 68

…cross examination of those persons. It is stated that the AO neither supplied the copies of statements nor afforded opportunity of cross examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Kishanchand ChandraprakashPahari a Chellaram vs. CIT (1980(125 ITR 713) that the materials, which were not supplied to the assessee, could not be used against the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) has held that, if the statements of the witnesses were the basis for passing the orders, then not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority am…

DCIT, CC- 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Surinder Anantram Sabhlok, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 56/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Mani JainFor Respondent: B.K. Bagchi &

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 68

…cross examination of those persons. It is stated that the AO neither supplied the copies of statements nor afforded opportunity of cross examination. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Kishanchand ChandraprakashPahari a Chellaram vs. CIT (1980(125 ITR 713) that the materials, which were not supplied to the assessee, could not be used against the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) has held that, if the statements of the witnesses were the basis for passing the orders, then not allowing assessee to cross examine witnesses by Adjudicating Authority am…