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 367,322 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

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ia A.O. to support the addition were not confronted the Appellant during the assessment proceeding, this material has to be completely ignored.” Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)] (ii). CIT v. Smt. S. Jayalakshmi Ammal [(2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad)] “2B. If no copy of the statements as referred in the assessment order and ultimately relied upon by the A.O. to support the addition were not confronted to the Appellant during the assessment proceeding and no cross — examination granted of the concerned persons, such stateme…

Rishipal Investments and Finance (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2465/DEL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2006-07] Rishipal Investments & Ito, Finance (P) Ltd. Ward-15(4), 25/31, Ambros House, Vs New Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008 Pan-Aabcr5971K Assessee Revenue

Section 139Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…he ground that no opportunity of cross-examination of the person was allowed to the assessee whose statement was the basis for making the addition. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs CCE reported in 281 CTR 214 and the decision of the Delhi Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Magan Behari Lal vs DCIT in ITA No.4558/Del/2019, order dated 16.09.2019, he submitted that it has been held in these decisions that the statement recorded in the back of the assessee cannot be relied…

Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 435/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.435/Ahd/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), V Ug-4/5 Rangila Park, Ghod Dod Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, S. Road, Surat-395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqcs 8686 P (Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena– CIT-DR
Section 131Section 131(1)(d)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…er of Income Tax, Central, Jaipur vs. Supertech Diamond Tools (P). Ltd (2014) 44 taxmann.com 460 (Rajasthan)  Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax vs Chartered Speed Pvt. Ltd. [Tax Appeal No. 126 of 2015 with 127 of 2015] (Guj. HC)  Kishanchand Chellaram v/s CIT [125 ITR 713] [SC]  H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT – Income Tax Appeal No. 58 of 2001 (HC) (Bom.)  Laxmanbhai S. Patel vs CIT [327 ITR 0290] (Guj HC) Comment on issue of Securities Premium ITA No.435/AHD/2017 A.Y. 2012-13 Sejal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The company has not violated the provision of section 78(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 as alleged by the assessing office…

Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…out by the AR's, there is no evidence on record as referred in assessment order, to prove that the proceeds received against sale of shares represent appellant's undisclosed income. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand Che/la Ram Vs CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 has held "that the burden is on the Department to prove that the money belongs to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on record and the assessee could not be excepted to call the concerned person in evidence to help the Department to discharge the burden that lay upon it". Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court i…

Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) Kolkata vs. Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitors Trust

The appeal stands dismissed

ITAT/312/2017HC Calcutta16 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

For Appellant: Mr. P. K. Bhowmick, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr. Adv
Section 12ASection 133ASection 260ASection 80G

…ded to the CIT(E) for fresh consideration. This aspect was also taken note of by the Tribunal and after noting the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram –vs- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-II reported in (1980)125 ITR 713(SC) and the decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries –vs- Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II reported in (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3(SC) rejected such a prayer made on behalf of the revenue. That apart, the tribunal upon re-examination of the facts found that there is nothing incriminating as against the assessee and except for…

Sunrise Shikshan Sansthan, Sikar vs. CIT(E), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1321/JPR/2019[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jan 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Choudhary (Adv)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 12ASection 2(15)Section 3

…ovided to the appellant- society. Even it is not clear whether such enquiry was made from parents or minor students. No statements were recorded in writing of any of the witnesses and no opportunity of cross examination was provided. In Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 SC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any material not confronted to assessee would not constitute as 'admissible evidence'. 5 ITA 1321/JP/2019_ Sunrise Shikshan Sansthan Vs CIT(E) It is a settled proposition of law that as per the principles of natural justice, the CIT (E) should have provided complete evidence to the assessee & grant opp…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(4), Bangalore vs. Sri B G Channappa, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2104/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri V Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143Section 153ASection 234Section 69B

…es of natural justice is a nullity and the same cannot be upheld having regard to the ratio of the following decisions and hence, the same requires to be deleted: [1] ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES reported in 127 DTR 241 [SC] [2] KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM reported in 125 ITR 713 [SC] [3] Colonisers reported in 41 lTD 57 [Hyd] [SB] [4] H.R.MEHTA reported in 138 DTR 217 [Born] ITA No.2104 & 2070/Bang/2017 Page 9 of 23 7. On appeal, the CIT(A) observed that the Affidavit filed by Smt. Rekha Venugopal before the AO cannot be relied on, wherein it was mentioned that sale value mentioned in the sale agreement dated 29/11/20…

M/S Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3302/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ravish Soodassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje, D.R
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 68

…(SC) wherein it has been held that addition made without giving opportunity of cross examination is void ab-initio and order is nullity. The Ld. A.R. also relied on another decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) to defend his arguments that addition made without giving the opportunity of cross examination is invalid and bad in law. The Ld. A.R. also referred to the decision of H.R. Mehta vs. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom.) wherein it has been held that addition made without giving an opportunity of cross 8 M/s. Harivardhan Steel & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. e…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…In this case honorable Delhi high court held that the reassessment based on deposition of third party without allowing opportunity to assessee to cross examine third party is not valid. It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Krishan Chand Cheliaran 125 ITR 713 (SC) that where any evidence in the form of statement of third party is used against the assessee without confronting the same to the assessee and without adequate opportunity of cross examination, it did not constitute any material evidence at all and therefore any addition based on such material was not in accordance with law. Further, It has b…

Income Tax Officer-1(3), Kanpur vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

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

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…out by the AR's, there is no evidence on record as referred in assessment order, to prove that the proceeds received against sale of shares represent appellant's undisclosed income. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand Che/la Ram Vs CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 has held "that the burden is on the Department to prove that the money belongs to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on record and the assessee could not be excepted to call the concerned person in evidence to help the Department to discharge the burden that lay upon it". Similar view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court i…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 929/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 928/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 926/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 925/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Bipin Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…drawn - audi alteram partem is a well-known principle of natural justice. This principle is established by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775,783), and applied by that court in Kishin chand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713), where an assessment based on the result of private inquiries conducted behind the back of the assessee was set aside because the evidence so gathered was not placed before the assessee. In Gunda Subbayya vs. CIT (7 ITR21, 28), Hon'ble Madras High Court has held: "Information which the Income-Tax Officer has received may not always be accurate…

ACIT, Circle-19(2), New Delhi vs. P & R Infraprojects Ltd, New Delhi

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

ITA 4944/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri V.K. Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Parikshit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ments were never provided to the appellant depriving it from the opportunity of cross examining him. Therefore, these statements have to be excluded from the assessment proceedings. The ld. AR relied on the following case laws:- KishmichandChella Ram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) Pr. CIT vs. M/s Rakam Money Matters Pvt. Ltd., 2015-TIOL-2521-HC-DEL 5 CIT vs. A.L. LaLpuria Construction (P.) LtD. [2013] 32 taxmann.com 384 (Rajasthan) Sona Electric Co. vs. CIT, 152 ITR 507 (DEL) Amar Singh vs ITO, 53 TTJ (DEL) 692 Virendra Kumar Saklechavs DCIT, 59 TTJ (Ind) 785 UdeyrajaGoliya (HUF) vs. ACIT, 64 ITD (Bom) 21 (TM) 6.2.8…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7281/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…is placed on the following judgments with regards to exclusion of statement and not to be made a basis for addition of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal: a) [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE b) 258 ITR 317 (Del) United Electricals vs. CIT c) [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT d) IT (SS) A. No. 12/D/07 Shri RadheyShyam Bansal vs. ACIT e) IT(SS) No. 233 and 234/D/2006 dated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati 46 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007]…

ACIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi vs. Jpm Tools Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 7280/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…is placed on the following judgments with regards to exclusion of statement and not to be made a basis for addition of Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal: a) [2015] 127 DTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE b) 258 ITR 317 (Del) United Electricals vs. CIT c) [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT d) IT (SS) A. No. 12/D/07 Shri RadheyShyam Bansal vs. ACIT e) IT(SS) No. 233 and 234/D/2006 dated 19.09.2008 Shri Manit Gulati and Sandeep Gulati 46 ITA No.6627/Del./2017 and 15 other appeals f) 109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. vs DCIT affirmed in 288 ITR 345 (Del) CIT vs. SMC Share Broker Ltd. g) [2007]…