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 367,295 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

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Surat vs. Shri Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 1481/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Parimalsinh B. Parmar, and Shri Aaditya For Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…essee, it would not constitute as "admissible evidence". Hence, any addition made on the basis of such evidence is liable to be deleted. To bolster his arguments, ld Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishnchand Chellaram - 125 ITR 713 (SC). 22. On the other hand, Shri H. P. Meena, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the assessee has submitted that search was conducted in the case of assessee, therefore assessing officer made addition under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The search was also conducted on other connected persons and incriminating material may…

Shankarlal C Shah, Surat vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue (in ITA No

ITA 1359/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1359 & 1481/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shankarlal C. Shah, The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. 199-201, Vishal Nagar Society, Surat. Udhna, Magdalla Road, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aeups4161E The Dcit, Central Circle-1, Vs. Manish Kashiram Patel, Surat. 15-16, Vanita Residency, Althan Canal Road, Althan, Surat. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ablpp5085E (Appellant)/(Revenue) (Respondent)/(Appellant)

For Appellant: Shri Tushar P Hemani, Sr. Advocate with Parimalsinh B. Parmar, and Shri Aaditya For Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR) & Ms Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153C

…essee, it would not constitute as "admissible evidence". Hence, any addition made on the basis of such evidence is liable to be deleted. To bolster his arguments, ld Counsel relied on the judgment of Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishnchand Chellaram - 125 ITR 713 (SC). 22. On the other hand, Shri H. P. Meena, Learned Departmental Representative (ld. DR) for the assessee has submitted that search was conducted in the case of assessee, therefore assessing officer made addition under section 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act. The search was also conducted on other connected persons and incriminating material may…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…Nagaraj cannot be considered as a reliable witness. More so, when the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. In this regard, we also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) wherein it was held that evidence collected from witness cannot be considered without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 218. We have also carefully gone through the statement of Mr. G H Nagraj, Secretary of the assessee trust. It was mainly discussed in Page no 64, 65, 74, 75 and 76 of assessment order. He was asked to…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Prabodhchabndra Jayantilal Patel, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 137/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…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 ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 136/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…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 ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 135/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…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 ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. 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…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir., 2, Surat vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue ( in ITA nos

ITA 134/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.134 To 137/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Pravinchandra Dahyabhai Umriger, Surat. Bungalow No.01, Opp. Talao Street, Near Govindji Park, Umra, Surat-395007(Guj) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabpu5216D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Vasantrai Ambaram Modi, Surat. 504, D/1, Subham Residency, Pal, Surat- 395005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acrpm0852D The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Shankar Mulchand Uttamani, Surat. 1/3210-11, New Textile Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahpu9028R The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Shri Prabodhchandra Jayantilal Patel, Surat. 297, Hari Narar-3, Opp. Brc Gate, Udhna, Surat-394210. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afvpp7466F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit(Dr) सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02/03/2022 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)

…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 ITA.134 to 137/SRT/2021/AY.2017-18 Prabodhchandra Jayatilal Patel & Ors. 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…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

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

ITA 1554/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…he case made against him.” 22. Without providing the material adverse to the assessee, no addition should have been made and this is clearly against the principles of natural justice as discussed by Supreme Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs CIT – 125 ITR 713. Relevant portion in page 719 to 721 of 125 ITR is extracted hereunder: ‘5. The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal is 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 Tilok Chand from Madras represented the undisclosed income of t…

M/S Anantha Refinery Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT

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

ITA 1553/BANG/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.R.Pradeep &For Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR

…he case made against him.” 22. Without providing the material adverse to the assessee, no addition should have been made and this is clearly against the principles of natural justice as discussed by Supreme Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram vs CIT – 125 ITR 713. Relevant portion in page 719 to 721 of 125 ITR is extracted hereunder: ‘5. The sole question which arises for determination in this appeal is 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 Tilok Chand from Madras represented the undisclosed income of t…

M/S India Impex, Mumbai vs. ACIT 19(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2858/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. India Impex V. Acit-19(1) Unit No. 4, 1St Floor Matru Mandir Building Brady Glady Plaza Bhatia Hospital Lane 1/447, Senpati Bapat Marg Javji Dadaji Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400013 Grant Road (W) Mumbai - 400007 Pan: Aaafi5046A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R.S. Khandelwal Department By : Shri R.A. Dhyani

For Appellant: Shri R.S. KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 10ASection 143(2)

…gain held that addition cannot be made if the Assessing Officer does not provide an opportunity of cross examination. Reliance is placed on the following decisions – (a) Andaman Timber Industries in Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) (b) Kishinchand Chhellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) H.R. Mehta 387 ITR 561 (Bom) 61. The assessee contend that the work has been actually done by Ms.Harshida and the Assessing Officer has not doubted the said aspect, however, merely because the bills were raised in the name of her husband disallowed the impugned expenses and thus, the impugned expenses ought to have been allowed. 62. Wi…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Qmax Synthetics Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4378/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit-4(3)(1) Vs. M/S Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacq0206D Respondent .. Appellant

For Appellant: Ashok BansalFor Respondent: T. Shankar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…1 ITA No.4378/Mum/2017 A.Y.2008-09 ACIT-4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Qmax Synthetics pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ACIT-4(3)(1) Vs. M/s Qmax Synthetics R. No. 649, 6th Floor, Pvt. Ltd., 5-B/174, Aayakar Bhavan, Sanjay Building, Mittal Mumbai – 400 020 Industrial Estate, Andheri (E), Mumbai 400 059 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AAACQ0206D Respondent .. Appellant Appellant by : Ashok Bansal Respondent by : T. Shankar Date of Hearing 23.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 27.04.2022 आदेश / O R D E…

Society for Welfare Awareness Research and Guidance, Delhi vs. ITO (Exemptions), Ward 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4702/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2011-12]

Section 12ASection 133ASection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…not supplied to the assessee. Therefore, any material collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishin Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 4 Taxman 29/125 ITR 713. It, therefore, stands clear that except the report received from Investigation Wing, Kolkata, ld. CIT(E), Kolkata or Investigation Wing of Varanasi or Lucknow, there were no other material with the ld. CIT(E) to assume that assessee was indulged in receiving unaccounted money in the garb of fund or re- donating the funds subject to commission. T…

ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)

…statement of a person is to be used in evidence against another person, such other person should be given a copy of such statement and an opportunity of cross examination. This is so stated by the honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram (125 ITR 713). 23 ITA 85/JP/2021_ ACIT Vs Dr. Shiv Gautam (ix) Thus in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that while denying the claim, the assessing officer neither provided nor confronted the statements of the aforesaid parties/purchasers to the appellant nor issued any show cause notice in this regard. Therefore, on…

ACIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi vs. M/S K.R. Pulp & Papers Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is

ITA 5064/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80I

…o the principles of natural justice. In support of this contention, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied upon the following decisions: 1. Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) (Page 186-189 of JPB). 2. Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). 3. CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Limited 288 ITR 345 (Del.). 28 ITA.No.5064/Del./2017 M/s. K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd., New Delhi. 4. CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del). 5. CIT vs. Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. 295 ITR 105 (Del). 6. CIT vs. Pradeep Kumar Gupta 303 ITR 95 (Del) 7. CIT vs. Ashwani Gupta 322 ITR 396 (Del) 8. CIT v Sunil Aggarwal 3…

Gm Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-48(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1891/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 131ASection 133ASection 143(3)Section 147

…erial which remained unconfronted with and without providing opportunity of cross-examination of the persons making statements such additions cannot be sustained:- (i) Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC); (ii) Kishinchand Chellaram v. CTT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC); (iii) CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 322 ITR 396 (Delhi); (iv) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd 288 ITR 0345 (Del); (v) Swadeshi Cotton Mills Company Ltd. vs UOI 51 ITC 210 (SC); (vi) Tin Box Company vs CIT 116,Taxman 419 (SC); (vii) AluDwyandra Kumar Bhattacharya vs Supdt. Of Income Tax 1990 78 STC (393); & (viii) Pr CIT vs Best Infrastructure (I…

ITO, Ward-3(3), Thane vs. Shri Shaitesh Dattatray Thakare, Thane

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 290/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Officer of completing the assessment without providing a copy of the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer thereby violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify…

Shailesh D. Thakre (Prop of Shivam Trading, Mumbai vs. ITO WD3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1733/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Officer of completing the assessment without providing a copy of the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer thereby violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify…

Shailesh D. Thakare, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(3), Mumbai

Appeal is partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1732/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Income Tax Officer, (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Ward 3(3), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, Company), K-14, New Vaity Wadi, R.No.8, Ashar It Park, Vs. Vishnu Nagar, Road No.16Z, Naupada, Wagle Estate Midc, Thane (West), Thane (W) - 400604 Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer, Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Ward 3(3), (Prop. Of Shivam Trading Room No.8, Company), 6Th Floor, B – Wing, K-14, New Vaity Wadi, Vs. Wagle Industrial Estate, Vishnu Nagar, Thane (W) - 400604 Naupada, Thane (West), Mumbai – 400 602 Pan: Abzpt 0626P (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Present For:

For Appellant: Ms. Radha Halbe, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ng Officer of completing the assessment without providing a copy of the documents relied upon by the Assessing Officer thereby violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Shri Shailesh D. Thakare Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,65,425/- being 25% of alleged bogus purchases of Rs.38,61,698/-. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or modify…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1946/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…thus it is prayed that the orders of the authorities below needs to be quashed on this count alone in the interest of equity and justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 713. 31. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 32. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, there was a search action on 2.10.2010 u/s. 132 of the Act at the assessee’s premises and certain incriminating documents were found. Originally notice u/s. 153A dated 14.11.2011 was s…

Mr. B.Nagendra, Belgium vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1945/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashant, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 132(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…thus it is prayed that the orders of the authorities below needs to be quashed on this count alone in the interest of equity and justice. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT reported in 125 ITR 713. 31. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the orders of lower authorities. 32. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In this case, there was a search action on 2.10.2010 u/s. 132 of the Act at the assessee’s premises and certain incriminating documents were found. Originally notice u/s. 153A dated 14.11.2011 was s…