Kavita Pawan Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai
The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order
ITA 7931/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13
Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1139-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C
…ce which would link assessee’s involvement in jacking up the prices of the shares with a view to earn artificial gains. The additions so made could not be sustained in the eyes of law as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713) and also in M/s Andaman Timber Industries V/s CCE (CA No.4228 of 2006 dated 02/09/2015) wherein it has been held that not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witnesses by the adjudicating authority though the statement of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order, is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity in as much…
