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

Bharat Lalchand Shah, Surat vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2058/AHD/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 May 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 68

…The learned counsel for the assessee further supported his view by placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC / 21 taxmann.com 159 (Gujarat) [2012] 208 taxman 35 (Gujarat) and Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) [1980] 4 Taxman 29 (SC) and contended that addition sustained by the Ld. CIT (A) needs to be deleted. 6. Per contra, the ld. Sr. D.R. submitted relying on the order of Ld. CIT (A) stated that that water charges bill and municipal tax receipt are dated 27.12.2018 hence, these cannot be treated as proof of existence of the KDPL during the asse…

Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…a guaranteed right. Every person affected by the statement of third party has indispensible right to know the evidence used against him. The AO as well as the CIT(A) has violated this cardinal principle as squarely underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party loaded against the assessee which was never confronted, the Revenue has not adduced any material which could expose the falsehood in the records of the assessee despite drastic action of search. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the AO for exerci…

M/S. Savaliya Buildcon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…a guaranteed right. Every person affected by the statement of third party has indispensible right to know the evidence used against him. The AO as well as the CIT(A) has violated this cardinal principle as squarely underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party loaded against the assessee which was never confronted, the Revenue has not adduced any material which could expose the falsehood in the records of the assessee despite drastic action of search. Therefore, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken by the AO for exerci…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “D”: DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 Smt. Kundan Singh, The ACIT, C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant Central Circle-25, Kunj, New Delhi. vs., New Delhi. PAN AAXPS1361F (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA.No.1797/Del./2015 Assessment Year 2009-2010 The ACIT, Smt. Kundan Singh, Central Circle-4 [erstwhile C-6 & 7/6529, Vasant CC-25], Room No.331, vs., Kunj, New Delhi. ARA Centre, Jhandewalan PAN AAXPS1361F Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai vs. Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 566/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…atement of third party without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses or documents 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. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 35,91,086/- being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,43,64,345/-, merely on surmises an…

Unitop Aquacare, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7397/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blea.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. M/S. Unitop Aquacare Room No.2, 6Th Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, Ashar I.T. Park, M.I.D.C, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Wagle Industrial Estate, Mic, Wagle Estate, Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Thane (W) – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Unitop Aquacare D.C.I.T Circle – 3 V. 501, 5Th Floor, Dosti Pinnacle, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T. Park, Plot No. E/7, Road No. 22, Road No. 16-Z Mic, Wagle Estate, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (W) - 400604 Thane, Mumbai – 400 604 Pan: Aabfu 6592 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Devendra Jain Department By : Shri Rajiv Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Rajiv Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…atement of third party without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses or documents 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. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 35,91,086/- being 25% of the alleged bogus purchases of Rs.1,43,64,345/-, merely on surmises an…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…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. Goin…

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2888/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Everest Aangan Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1184/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bledy. Commissioner Of Income V. M/S. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., Tax – 15(1)(1) Shop No. 30, Room No. 470, 4Th Floor, Runwal Commercial Complex, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Lbs Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai – 400 080 Pan: Aabce 6428 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nimesh Chothani Department By : Shri Rajesh Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri Nimesh ChothaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…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 13 M/s. Everest Aangan Pvt. Ltd., 25.04.2014 retracting, the statements made before the Investigation Wing. Assessing officer has not given opportunity to the appellant for cross examinat…

Shetkari Solvent (India) Limited, Nagpur vs. ACIT C.C. 1(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 137/NAG/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Mar 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.137/Nag/2012 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007–08 Shetkari Solvent (India) Ltd., Ug–7&8, Jagat Chambers, Near Ambedkar Sqr, Central Avenue, Bagadganj, Nagpur–440008. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcs0105N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Central Circle–1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Nagpur Dated 11.01.2012 For The Assessment Year 2007-08. 2. The Revised Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :– “1. That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.5,79,60,000 On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases Of Soya Doc

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, DR
Section 139Section 153C

…ng material raised for the first time before the Tribunal and, therefore, the same should not be entertained. 9. During the rebuttal time, ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) for the proposition and submitted that the addition should not be sustained when the same are based on the incriminating material gathered at the back of the assessee. Granting proper opportunity is the requirement of the law. Assessee relied heavily on the additional evidences furnished before us. The ld. 10 AR submitted that the entire pu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1205/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585-591 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 25 M/s Agrasen Agro I…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota

ITA 1188/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585-591 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 25 M/s Agrasen Agro I…

M/S. Agrasen Agro Industries Private Limited, Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1053/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…n Jain and group were material on which the IT authorities could act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) (Copy at Case Law PB 585-591 filed in case of M/s Kota Dall Mill) has held that “whether there was any material evidence to justify the findings of the Tribunal that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 said to have been remitted by Tilokchand from Madras represented the undisclosed ITA 1053, 1188 & 1205/JP/2018 & CO 48/JP/2018_ 25 M/s Agrasen Agro I…

Mrs. Reena Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle - 8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1007/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also re…

Mr.Ratnesh Chand Jain, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 1001/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2013-14 Mr. Ratnesh Chand Jain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax, Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar, Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Link Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aabpj0683P Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 & Assessment Year: 2010-11 & Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mrs. Reenajain, Deputy Commissioner Of 902/903, A Wing, Kalinga Vs. Income Tax Central Tower, Nirmal Nagar Link Circle-8(4), 658, 6Th Road, Mulund (West), Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400080 Mumbai. Pan No. Aeapj6605C

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Srivastava, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

…Jain 833, ITO v. WD Estate (P.) Ltd. (1993) 45 ITD 473 (Bom). Addl. CIT v. Ms. Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom), Unitex Products Ltd. v. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 429 (Mumbai), CIT v. Balaji Wire (P.) Ltd. (2008) 304 ITR 393 (Del),Kishinchand Chellaram (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC), R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission [1989] 43 Taxman 34 (SC), HR Mehta v. ACIT (2016) 387 ITR 561 (Bom), Prakash Chand Nahta v. CIT (2008) 301 ITR 134 (MP) and CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras). 10. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supports the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). Also re…

Shri Om Prakash Singh, Mathura vs. ACIT Circle-3, Agra

In the result appeal is partly allowed

ITA 331/AGR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra22 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 144Section 234BSection 44ASection 68

…Products Limited (2009) 177 Taxman 331 (Del) (e) Sargoi Credit Corporation vs. CIT (1976) 103 ITR 344 (Pat.) (f) MeghajiNarain& Co. vs. ITO (1990) 37 TTJ (Ind.) 624 (g) CIT vs. DaulatramRawatmal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) (h) Kishan Chand Chelaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (S.C.) (i) CIT Vs. RanchhodJivabhaiNakhava in Appeal No. 50 of 2011 (Guj. H.C) (j) CIT Vs. M/s. Dataware (P) Limited in ITAT No. 263 of 2011 GA No. 2856 of 2011 (Calcutta High Court) (k) MunnalalMurliDharVs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All.) 11 I.T.A No. 331/Agra/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) (l) CIT VsKamdhenuVyapar Co. Limited (2003) 263ITR 692 (C…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2841/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…x Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015. Further, reliance was placed on the following judgments: - Prakash Chand Nahata vs. Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC); - Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC); - CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.); - Alok Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.); Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 3.5 As regards the addition of Rs. 49,17,124/- on account of bogus purchases and Commission paid @ 0.25% thereon of Rs.12,292/-, it was contended by the Ld. AR that the AO, on the basis of statement of…

M/S. Asian Colour Coated Ispat Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, ground nos

ITA 2840/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D.Agrawal & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv, Miss Umang Luthra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Mishra, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…x Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE in Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015. Further, reliance was placed on the following judgments: - Prakash Chand Nahata vs. Union of India 163 CTR 310 (SC); - Kishan Chand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC); - CIT vs. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. 288 ITR 345 (Del.); - Alok Aggarwal vs. DCIT (2000) 67 TTJ 109 (Del.); Assessment year 2009-10, 2008-09 3.5 As regards the addition of Rs. 49,17,124/- on account of bogus purchases and Commission paid @ 0.25% thereon of Rs.12,292/-, it was contended by the Ld. AR that the AO, on the basis of statement of…

Shri Kishorebhai V. Vithlani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1216/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1216/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Shri Kishorchandra V. Vithlani Vs. Ito, Ward-6(3) 10, Dharamnagar Hsg. Society Baroda. Nr. Sbi Navbazar, At. Karjan Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Aatpv 8204 E

For Appellant: Shri Anil R. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 54Section 69A

…could not be traced. The assessee was bound to give explanation of the source of deposits, which he miserably failed. The ld.counsel for the assessee made reference to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Anandman Timber and Kishanchand Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 and submitted that no cross-examination was given to the assessee qua these persons. 10. It is pertinent to observe that they are the witnesses of the assessee. It is for the assessee to bring positive evidence on record demonstrating the identity of the person from whom he has taken loans. Their credit-worthiness and genuineness of the transact…