Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Jagdish B. Prajapati (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.548/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Jagdish B. Prajapati (Huf) Acit-24(2) बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers 311B, Urmila Chs Ltd., Kol Dongri Sahar Road, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai - 400012 Pan No. : Aaehj-9503-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

…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 11 Jagdish B.Prajapati (HUF) Assessment Year: 2014-15 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…

M/S Swargamrut Dairy Prv Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 11 (2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Blem/S. Swargamrut Dairy Pvt. Ltd., V. Dcit – 11(2)(2) 113, 1St Chamber Income Tax Office, Churchgate Maker Chamber-V Mumbai - 400020 Nariman Point – 400021 Pan: Aalcs3714R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vishnu Agarwal Department By : Shri Vijaykumar Menon Date Of Hearing : 18.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.06.2021

…utilized against the appellant without giving full and proper opportunity of cross examination as has been held vide Mahesh Gulabral Joshi Vs. CIT(A) (2005) 95 lTD 300 Mumbai ITAT and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of KishanchandChellaram Vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 (SC)). 6.3. Further during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has produced copy of a comprehensive Affidavit of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain dated 25.04.2014 retracting, the statements made before the Investigation Wing. Assessing officer has not given opportunity to the appellant for cross examination of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. Going…

M/S.Neminath Mumbai Shelter, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

…revenue is not established when the assessee disputes the correctness of those statements and has not been afforded adequate opportunity to cross- examine those parties even though he has asked for the same. In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) the Hon’ble Supreme court had held that the authorities cannot use the statement of a person for drawing of adverse inferences without giving an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. Further, the Hon’ble High Court of 39 Neminath Mumbai Shelter vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai ITA Nos. 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018…

DCIT Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai vs. M/S.Bell Fabrics Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and cross objection filed by the assessee is also dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10

…n of the person, who gave the statement, when such opportunity has been availed by the person against whom, such statements are used. This legal proposition is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC), where it was held that when, third party information is relied upon to draw an adverse inference against the assessee, the same needs to be provided and also opportunity of cross examination shall be given, if such opportunity is availed by the assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries Ltd Vs CCE, Kolkata…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

…, however, the same has yet not been provided to the Appellant due to which the veracity of the statement cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. Reliance is placed on the decision of the HonlDle Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) page 269 - 274 of PB-III (at Para 6 at page 274) wherein it was held that where employee of one office of assessee made, through a bank, telegraphic transfer of certain amount to employee of another office, the ITO, on the basis of letters from bank manager, not shown to assessee, treated amount so remitted as income from undisclosed sources…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

…, however, the same has yet not been provided to the Appellant due to which the veracity of the statement cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. Reliance is placed on the decision of the HonlDle Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) page 269 - 274 of PB-III (at Para 6 at page 274) wherein it was held that where employee of one office of assessee made, through a bank, telegraphic transfer of certain amount to employee of another office, the ITO, on the basis of letters from bank manager, not shown to assessee, treated amount so remitted as income from undisclosed sources…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

…, however, the same has yet not been provided to the Appellant due to which the veracity of the statement cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. Reliance is placed on the decision of the HonlDle Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) page 269 - 274 of PB-III (at Para 6 at page 274) wherein it was held that where employee of one office of assessee made, through a bank, telegraphic transfer of certain amount to employee of another office, the ITO, on the basis of letters from bank manager, not shown to assessee, treated amount so remitted as income from undisclosed sources…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

…, however, the same has yet not been provided to the Appellant due to which the veracity of the statement cannot be considered to be sacrosanct. Reliance is placed on the decision of the HonlDle Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) page 269 - 274 of PB-III (at Para 6 at page 274) wherein it was held that where employee of one office of assessee made, through a bank, telegraphic transfer of certain amount to employee of another office, the ITO, on the basis of letters from bank manager, not shown to assessee, treated amount so remitted as income from undisclosed sources…