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 367,181 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

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2101/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Ghaziabad. statement shall have to be confronted to the assessee and right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read i…

Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, all the appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2100/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…Ghaziabad. statement shall have to be confronted to the assessee and right of cross-examination to such statement shall have to be given to the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015] 281 CTR 214 (SC). In this case no material is produced before us to show if any right of cross-examination have been allowed by the A.O. or the other Income Tax Authority to the statement of Shri Ramendra Kumar Singh to the assessee. Therefore, such statement otherwise also cannot be read i…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…that the assessing officer is not entitled to rely upon the documents collected behind the back of the assessee. In this regard, the Ld A.R placed his reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of KishinchandChellaram vs. CIT (1980125 ITR 713). He further submitted that the assessing officer has ITA. Nos.4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2016-17 not provided opportunity to cross examine the parties who gave adverse statements. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CIT (Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 dated 02-09-2015) that, n…

Trn Impex Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 7991/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 68

…t is made by assessee. therefore, such statements cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. The assessee relied upon Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 ITA.No.7991/Del./2019 TRN Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., SMC Share Broker Limited 288 ITR 345 (Del.). The assessee, therefore, prayed for reopening of the assessment may be quashed and addition on merit may be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A), however, did not accept the contention of assessee and held that the right to cross-examine of the p…

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 923/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…ught on record. Assessee requested to the ld Assessing Officer to provide cross-examination; but same was not provided thus defying the principles of Natural Justice and is supported in favor of assessee by the following decisions:- i. Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii. P.S. Abdul Majeed v. Agrl. ITandSTO [1994] 209 ITR 821 (Ker.) ii. CITv. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal.) iv. Hirji Nagji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 286 (Ori.) 25 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91, 109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. v. J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 19 ITD 102 (Delhi) vi. CI…

Ag-8 Ventures Ltd., Bhopal vs. ACIT, Central-1, Bhopal

In the result appeals of the Revenue bearing No

ITA 922/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 40A(3)Section 80I

…ught on record. Assessee requested to the ld Assessing Officer to provide cross-examination; but same was not provided thus defying the principles of Natural Justice and is supported in favor of assessee by the following decisions:- i. Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) ii. P.S. Abdul Majeed v. Agrl. ITandSTO [1994] 209 ITR 821 (Ker.) ii. CITv. Eastern Commercial Enterprises [1994] 210 ITR 103 (Cal.) iv. Hirji Nagji and Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 286 (Ori.) 25 IT(SS)A No.83,84,86,87,90,91, 109,110 & ITA, No.922 &923/Ind/2019 AG8 Ventures Ltd. v. J.K Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 19 ITD 102 (Delhi) vi. CI…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…of option money. It was not put in any escrow account, but it was used by the appellant as per its own free will because none of it was to be refunded. It is settled proposition of law as held by Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chela Ram vs. CIT in 46 ITR 640 at page 645, that the nature and quality of the receipts has to be examined at the time of its receipt. Such quality cannot be affected or altered by Page 29 of 155 subsequent act or conduct. There is no prohibition under the law that in every case where the amount has been received in advance and the transaction has taken place later, the amount…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Quality Synthetics Industries Ltd., Kolkata

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6658/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Feb 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…) Mauria Udyog Ltd. (ITA No. 6660/Del/2016 order dated 29.11.2018 Del. Tri.) ii) CIT vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. 380 ITR 612 (Del HC) iii) PCIT vs. M/s Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1152/17 order dated 9.8.2019 Del. HC) iv) Kishinchand Chellaram vs. DCIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. At the outset from the perusal of the satisfaction note reproduced in the order of the CIT(A) as well as the assessment order, it can be seen that no incriminating material was found in assessee’s case which was belonging to the assessee during the search and se…

Mr. Vimal Pravin Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5009/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

Mr. Pravin H Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4928/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

Mr. Vivek Anraj Shah HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19 (3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4927/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

Shri. Mahendra S Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

Shantaben Anraj Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax-Officer-19(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 7227/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

Parasmal Asmalji Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 4990/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Blemrs. Shantaben Anraj Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(3) 15, Keshav Bhavan Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aapps5081C (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vimal Pravin Shah V. Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) 3/A, 114-E, R.K. Wadi Building Matru Mandir, Tardev Road 1St Pariswada Lane Mumbai – 400 007 S.V.P. Road, Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Awaps4695R (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Parasmal Asmalji Mehta V. Income Tax Officer – 19(2)(5) M/S. Kobe Steel (India) Room No. 210, 2Nd Floor 450, Pathe Bapurao Marg Matru Mandir, Tardev Road Loatwala Building Mumbai – 400 007 Near Sindhi Gally Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aakpj0600R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

…ically asked by the assessee the addition made by the Assessing Officer as confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) ought to be deleted. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions in respect of the above contention: - (a) Kishinchand Chellaram [125 ITR 713 (SC)] (b) Andaman Timber-Civil Appeal no 4228 of 2006 (SC) dated 02.09.2015 (c) Shyam Pawar [54 Taxmann.com 108 (Bom HC)] (d) Anraj Shah HUF in ITA No 4514/Mum/2018 (family matter) of the same group (e) Mukesh B Sharma in ITA No 6249Mum/2018 ITA NOs. 3998, 4927, 4928 & 5009/MUM/2019 7. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgemen…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics & Packaging (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 737/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ssam) Ltd. 258 ITR 126 (Guj.) for holding that the statement of third party cannot be relied upon without having any corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) in which the Apex Court held that adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee from the statement of third parties. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Indrajeet Singh Suri (2013) 33 Taxmann 281 (Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Court held…

ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Ariba Foods (P) Ltd., Indore

ITA 736/IND/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Jan 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ssam) Ltd. 258 ITR 126 (Guj.) for holding that the statement of third party cannot be relied upon without having any corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) in which the Apex Court held that adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee from the statement of third parties. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Indrajeet Singh Suri (2013) 33 Taxmann 281 (Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Court held…

The ACIT (Central), Ujjain vs. M/S. Famous Vanijya (P) Ltd., Ujjain

ITA 773/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt, Hon'Ble & Hon'Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Ariba Foods Pvt. Acit (Central), Vs. Ltd, 101, Gold Star Building, Ujjain Opp. Treasure Island, 5767 M.G. Road, Indore (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aalca7223M Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Vyanktesh Plastics Acit (Central), Vs. & Packaging Pvt. Ltd, 75/7-B, Industrial Area, Ujjain Maxi Road, Ujjain (Revenue ) (Appellant) Pan No.Aaacv6547J Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…ssam) Ltd. 258 ITR 126 (Guj.) for holding that the statement of third party cannot be relied upon without having any corroborative evidence. The CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) in which the Apex Court held that adverse inference cannot be drawn against the assessee from the statement of third parties. The Ld. CIT(A) further relied upon the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Ariba Foods Pvt. Ltd & Ors. Gujarat in the case of CIT vs. Indrajeet Singh Suri (2013) 33 Taxmann 281 (Guj.) in which the Hon’ble Court held…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…f Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in rejecting the ground of appellant for not allowing cross examination of parties on whose statements assessing officer is relying and not following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) wherein it has been clearly held by Apex court that relying on statement recorded on the back of the assessee without allowing cross examination is invalid.- NIL 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not examining and giving any finding…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…f Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in rejecting the ground of appellant for not allowing cross examination of parties on whose statements assessing officer is relying and not following the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (281 CTR 241) wherein it has been clearly held by Apex court that relying on statement recorded on the back of the assessee without allowing cross examination is invalid.- NIL 11. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) further erred in not examining and giving any finding…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Shri Manoj M. Desai Vs. Room No. 1926, 19th 204, Sahyadri Floor, Air India Building Neelkanth Vally Nariman Point Complex, 7th Road Mumbai-400 021. Rajawadi Mumbai-400 077. PAN : ABBPD2066K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Department by Shri Deepakant Prasad Date of Hearing 29.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of Lea…