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

Hindon Forege Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 1, Ghaziabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 3800/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 68

…uch material collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon decision of 9 ITA.No.3800/Del./2017 M/s. Hindon Forge (P) Ltd., Ghaziabad. the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “any material collected at the back of the assessee and not confronted and no opportunity given to cross-examine, such material cannot be relied upon against the assessee.” The same view have been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the case of M/s Andaman Timber Indust…

Nisa Industrial Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT- WD -10(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3171/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita P. Kaushik, DR
Section 131Section 133Section 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…de on the basis of such material/statement etc. shall be rendered illegal. Reference in this regard can be made from the decisions made in the following judiciary ruling: - • R.B. ShreeramDurga Prasad 176 ITR 169 (SC), • KishanChandChellaram Vs. C.I.T. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Jindal Vegetable (order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in ITA no. 428 of 2007, 174 Taxmann 440 (Raj.) • LaxmanBhai Patel (order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court dated 22.07.2008 in ITR no. 41/1997). 20. Shri Pravin Kumar Agarwal was never a DIRECTOR as well as SHAREHOLDER of lender companies, from whom the appellant company has received the unse…

M/S Suindu & Co., Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 17(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the terms aforesaid

ITA 1476/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं.1476/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2010-11) M/S. Suindu & Co., 33, Jupiter Building, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai 400 005. : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Pan: Aacfs5934P बनाम/ Vs. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax-17(3), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 : ""थ"/ Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms Smita Verma

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Smita Verma
Section 131Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 35A

…the basis of statement of Trustee. 6. It is a well settled law that a statement cannot be used against the assessee unless an opportunity is granted to the assessee to cross examine the person who has made such statement. [ Re. Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713(SC)]. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ICDS Ltd. Vs. CIT, 273 Taxman 12, held that where opportunity to cross-examine witness relied upon by the Assessing Officer is not extended to the assessee, the entire issue has to be adjudicated fresh by giving fair opportunity to both the sides. Similar view has been taken by Hon’ble Bombay High Court…

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4436/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…irmation was given on 01/08/2015 i.e. much after the date of recording of the statements and hence, the same would amount to retraction of the statement. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR 713 for the submission that the assessee should have been confronted with the evidences being relied upon by the department. Similar documentary evidences were submitted with respect to purchase as well as unsecured loan transactions carried out with M/s Money Diam. The assessee submitted that since it had duly discharged the onus of proving the purc…

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4435/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…irmation was given on 01/08/2015 i.e. much after the date of recording of the statements and hence, the same would amount to retraction of the statement. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR 713 for the submission that the assessee should have been confronted with the evidences being relied upon by the department. Similar documentary evidences were submitted with respect to purchase as well as unsecured loan transactions carried out with M/s Money Diam. The assessee submitted that since it had duly discharged the onus of proving the purc…

Lypsa Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ITO WD- 30(2)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 4434/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील सं./ Ita No. 4434/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4435/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 4436/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Lypsa Diamonds Income Tax Officer – Wared 30(2)(1) बिाम/ 2Nd Floor, Mehta Mahal C-13, 6Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhawan North Side, 15Th Mathew Road Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Charni Road, Mumbai – 400 004 Mumbai – 400 051 स्थािीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaafl-0410-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 15/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald-Ld. DR
Section 143Section 145Section 147Section 14ASection 234ASection 274Section 3Section 68Section 69C

…irmation was given on 01/08/2015 i.e. much after the date of recording of the statements and hence, the same would amount to retraction of the statement. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT 125 ITR 713 for the submission that the assessee should have been confronted with the evidences being relied upon by the department. Similar documentary evidences were submitted with respect to purchase as well as unsecured loan transactions carried out with M/s Money Diam. The assessee submitted that since it had duly discharged the onus of proving the purc…

Thirubala Chemicals P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-25(2), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

ITA 7130/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shantanu Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Parikshist Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…Inspector. Therefore, such material collected at the back of the assessee cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. In support of this contention, he has relied upon Judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kishanchand Chellaram vs., CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and M/s. Andaman Timber Industries vs., CCE, Kolkata (2016) 15 SCC 785 (SC). He has, therefore, submitted that such material cannot be used in evidence against the assessee. He has submitted that it is an undisputed fact that all the creditors are assessed to tax and have sufficient means to make the investment in assessee company and the Co…

M/S. Vyalikaval House Building Co-Operative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee for all assessment years under consideration stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 70/BANG/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep &For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139Section 80

…granted proper opportunity to controvert the materials gathered by Ld.AO during search and used against assessee. Only then, there would be compliance of principle of natural justice. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Chand Chela Ram v CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 held that, cross-examination is must, where AO relies only on statement of third Party unconnected with assessee. 10. We also note that, revenue has also not placed reliance on any other circumstantial evidences that formed the basis of addition, apart from statements recorded. We also note that Ld.AO did not provide assesee the seized materials…

M/S. Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Industries Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5798/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2005-06 Shree Balkishan Agarwal Glass Vs Dcit, Industries Ltd., Circle-8(1), C/O Sarvam & Associates, New Delhi. 403, Klj Tower North, B-5, Netaji Subhash Place, District Centre, Pitampura, Delhi. Pan: Aabcs2870C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148

…dverse material to the assessee for cross-examination despite specific request made vide letter dated 4th March, 2013. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 281 CTR 241 (SC), Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and various other decisions he submitted that in absence of denial of natural justice to the assessee makes the assessment a nullity. He accordingly submitted that the reassessment proceedings are not in accordance with law and the addition on merit also requires to be deleted. 21. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order…

Riddhi Siddhi Construction, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(3), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7196/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2020AY 2010-11
Section 133(6)Section 142(2)Section 40

…la purchases, merely on the basis of alleged statement given to sales tax department, without providing an opportunity to cross examine those parties, disregarding 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.) and Bombay High Court in the case of H. R. Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 72 taxmann.com HO(Bombay) and CIT v. Ashish International (Bom HC -IT APPEAL NO.4299 OF 2009). 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law,…

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…e statement would have no evidentiary value. For aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timer Industries Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006) & the decision of Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713). 4.4 The assessee also raised a plea that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search operations, the additions would not be sustainable. However, this plea was rejected by Ld.CIT(A) which has already been enumerated by us in preceding para 3.15. Similar plea has been raised before us by Ld. AR. However, we ar…

Ramesh Babulal Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbau

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7662/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 68

…e statement would have no evidentiary value. For aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed, inter-alia, on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Andaman Timer Industries Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006) & the decision of Kishanchand Chellaram V/s CIT (125 ITR 713). 4.4 The assessee also raised a plea that in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search operations, the additions would not be sustainable. However, this plea was rejected by Ld.CIT(A) which has already been enumerated by us in preceding para 3.15. Similar plea has been raised before us by Ld. AR. However, we ar…

Sameer Maheshwari, Indore vs. ITO-3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 224/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jul 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13

Section 143(3)Section 148

…the same. It is prayed that, once the department relied on certain document, it was incumbent upon them to provide a copy of the same before making assessment, and if the same had not been provided, no addition can be made based on same. Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) Thus, it is submitted that no on-money was paid by the assessee. The addition which is without any basis, may kindly be deleted. 6. Per contra Ld. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 7. I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record. It is not disputed that the assess…

Sulekh Chand Singhal, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 57(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed

ITA 6700/DEL/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Gupta, Sr.D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 141(1)Section 147

…essee in the 7 ITA.No.6700/Del./2019 Shri Sulekh Chand Singhal, Delhi. Income Tax proceedings and such material/statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. We rely upon Judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC). Thus, the statement of Dr. P. Mahalingam cannot be relied upon against the assessee. There is no other material available on record so as to make any addition against the assessee. Thus, onus upon the Revenue Department to prove that assessee paid cash to Dr. P. Mahalingam or the Medical Colleg…

Suresh Kumar Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-25, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8703/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishia Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner Of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi Pan :- Abvpk1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date Of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date Of Order 29.06.2020 Present For Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present For Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental Representative O R D E R

Section 143Section 148Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [G BENCH] New Delhi BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A Y 2011-12 Appellant Respondent Shri Suresh Kumar Agarwal The Assistant Commissioner of 154, Deepali Enclave Vs. Income Tax Pitampura Central Circle -25 New Delhi New Delhi PAN :- ABVPK1318H ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Date of Hearing 17-06-2020 Date of Order 29.06.2020 Present for Assessee Shri Gautam Jain , Advocate Present for Income Tax Department :- Shri Saras Kumar Senior Departmental representative O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A.M.: 01. ITA number 8703…

M/S Garware Synthetics Limited, Mira Road vs. Asst CIT Circle-15 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6832/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Soodgarware Synthetics Limited Vs. Acit,Circle-15(1)(2) Manish Textile Ind. Premises Aaykar Bhawan Opp. Golden Chemicals M.K.Road Penkar Pada, Post Mira Mumbai-400 020 Thane-401 104 Pan/Gir No.Aaacg4208M (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER Garware Synthetics Limited Vs. ACIT,Circle-15(1)(2) Manish Textile Ind. Premises Aaykar Bhawan Opp. Golden Chemicals M.K.Road Penkar Pada, Post Mira Mumbai-400 020 Thane-401 104 PAN/GIR No.AAACG4208M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Haridas Bhat, AR Revenue by Shri V.Vinod Kumar, JCIT -DR Date of Hearing 24/02/2020 Date of Pronouncement 24/06/2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M): This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order…

Rajinder Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-42(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8320/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jun 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R
Section 148Section 150(1)Section 69

…confronted to assessee and assessee have been allowed to cross-examine such statements, no such material or statement, could be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC). In the present case, the A.O. has relied upon the statement of Dr P Mahalingam, recorded during the course of search, under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act against the assessee, in which he has admitted to have received capitation fees from the assessee of Rs.19,75,000/- in cash. The assessing officer recorded statement of assessee at…

DCIT 12(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Amba Enterprised Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, application filed by the assessee u/s 27 is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6326/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit 12(1)(1), M/S. Amba Enterprises Room No.223, Ltd., 2Nd Floor, 430, 4Th Floor, Blue Rose Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Industries, M.K. Road, Near Metro Bazar, Mumbai - 400020 W.E. Highway, Mumbai – 400 066 Pan: Aafca6033R (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.05.2020 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ty whose statement is used against the assessee, the order so passed is bad in law and deserved to be quashed. In defense of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions : 8 M/s. Amba Enterprises Ltd. 1. Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT – (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 2. CIT vs. Ashish International – ITXA 4299 of 2009 (Bombay High Court) 3. CIT vs. H.R. Mehta – ITXA 58 of 2001 (Bombay High Court) The Ld. A.R. finally prayed before the Bench that the order passed by the AO is bad in law the assumption of jurisdiction is not as law and may be quashed. 11. The Ld. D.R., on the other hand, strongly opposed…

Nirmala Devi, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-03, Hisar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishinirmala Devi Vs Ito House No. 8, Green Park, Hisar Ward-03 Haryana Pin: 125001 Ayakar Bhawan, Hisar Pan: Aappd3170P Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…e nexus of any involvement of appellant in the alleged diversion of income of Rs.20,24,792/- in connivance with the broker in light of ratio decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court Decision in case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT Bombay City - II reported in [1980] 125 ITR 713(SC). iii. that it was incorrect and illegal to use the assessment proceedings for merely conducting roving enquiry which action should have been initiated under section 133(6)/131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 before recording the reasons by Ld. A.O. in the light of ratio decided by Gujarat High Court in the case of PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA…

Neeta Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 4319/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Sh. N.M. Porwal-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Lakshmi Nayak- Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…hi is a general statement and the name of the appellant has not been mentioned specifically in the said statements and no opportunity of cross examination has been provided as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram V. CIT[1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC). 6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals - 45, Mumbai erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 17,40,000/- u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 made by the AO on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. on account of sale of jewellery despite the fact that that purchasing parties confirmed the purchase of jewellery and payme…