Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Bhagawati M Jain, Dombivali vs. Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhagawati M Jain Income Tax Officer C-22, Bhanu Chs, Ward 3(1), Bhanu Nagar, Dombivali East, 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion, Vs. Kalyan - 421201 Kalyan-Murbad Rd, Maharashtra Kalyan-Dombivali, Maharashtra, 421301 (Pan: Aatpj1123G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Viraj Mehta, Ca Revenue : Shri Aditya Rai, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.03.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1073449956(1), Dated 19.02.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, U/S. 147 R.W.S.144B Of The Income- Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 26.02.2024, For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under:

…today no evidence was produce or furnished to me. And even not allowing me for the cross examination of the said builders. I am referring to following decision as held for similar issue. i. C Vasantalal and Co. 45 ITR 206(SC) ii. Kishan Chand Chellaram VSCIT (125 ITR 713) iii. CIT Central Jaipur Vs. Smt. Sunita Dhadda iv. M/s Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 92015 (281 CTR 241(SC)." 5.1 On the contrary, ld. Sr. DR placed reliance on the orders of authorities below and submitted that addition made is based on material passed on by search party to the ld. Assessing Officer and is thus,…

M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. The DCIT 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Ltd. Room No. 504, 5Th 5Th Floor, Militia Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mathur Pakhadi Road, M.K. Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Acit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 5Th Floor, Militia Road, Apartment, Mathur Mumbai 400020 Pakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd.

…ination with Mr. Praveen Jain and Mr. Abhishek Chokhani on whose statement the Ld. AO has relied upon for initiating and completing the reassessment proceedings. In this regard, the appellant relies on following decisions: i. Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC). M/s. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd. ii. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Mumbai (Bombay High Court) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay). 16. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds The grounds, as raised by the Revenue are as follows: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) err…

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Vs. Dcit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Ltd. Room No. 504, 5Th 5Th Floor, Militia Apartment, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Mathur Pakhadi Road, M.K. Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai 400020 Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Acit 6(1) (1), Mumbai Vs. M/S Armstrong Energy Pvt. Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. 5Th Floor, Militia Road, Apartment, Mathur Mumbai 400020 Pakhadi Road, Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400010 Pan/Gir No. Aafca3807R (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nishit Gandhi Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: M/S. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd.

…ination with Mr. Praveen Jain and Mr. Abhishek Chokhani on whose statement the Ld. AO has relied upon for initiating and completing the reassessment proceedings. In this regard, the appellant relies on following decisions: i. Kishanchand Chellaram vs CIT 1980 125 ITR 713 (SC). M/s. Armstrong Energy Pvt. Ltd. ii. H. R. Mehta vs. ACIT, Mumbai (Bombay High Court) [2016] 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bombay). 16. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify any or all grounds The grounds, as raised by the Revenue are as follows: (1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) err…

Vinodkumar Ghisulal Shah(HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvinod Kumar Ghisulal Shah Vs. Ito, Ward 20(3)(5), Mumbai. 2Nd (Huf). Room No.205, Floor, Piramal A-101, P2 Floor, Vijaya Chamber, Lalbaug, Parel Mumbai- Residency, Chiwda Gully, 400012. Lalbaugh, Mumbai-400012. Pan/Gir No: Aaghv3367R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…r information in his possession and without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.). 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(Appeals)-51has erred in sustaining addition of Rs.2,61,31,711/- to the income of the appellant under section 68 as unexplained cash credit of the Act even after providing all r…

Arvind Khetaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…m requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held tha v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected t any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him,…

Arvind Ketaram Purohit, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

…m requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held tha v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected t any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him,…

Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi Ito,Ward-19(2)(4), Mumbai Gr. Floor, Shreeji Kripa Building, Vs Room No. 609, Piramal 9, Kumbhar Tukda, Bhuleshwar, Chambers, Lalbaug, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400004. Maharashtra – 400012. [Pan No. Aabpd1392D] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

…t u/s 143(3) read with section 147, without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (Appeals), Addl/JCIT(A)-1, Noida has erred in upholding the Assessment Order without considering the appellant's submissions and without giving the Niraj Pravinchandra Doshi o…

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

…tement is the "sole basis" of the addition is incorrect. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai - [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] Proposition 2.3- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713(SC)] has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross- examination where facts are disputed. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA…

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

…tement is the "sole basis" of the addition is incorrect. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai - [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] Proposition 2.3- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713(SC)] has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross- examination where facts are disputed. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA…

Bipin Futarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee are allowed, in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

…tement is the "sole basis" of the addition is incorrect. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai - [ITA Nos. 6523 to 6525/MUM/2025] Proposition 2.3- Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713(SC)] has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross- examination where facts are disputed. Relevant Cases - (i) Bharat Solanki v. DCIT Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai- [ITA…