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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1230/JPR/2018[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2016-17
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1104/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1103/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1102/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2012-13
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1101/JPR/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota

ITA 1100/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1026/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2015-16
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1025/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

M/S. Multi Metal Private Ltd., Kota vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

ITA 1024/JPR/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jan 2019AY 2010-11
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153B(1)(b)

…2 CO 38 & 39/JP/2018 Multimetals Ltd, Vs DCIT 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) 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 income of the assessee. The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at…

M/S Holy Faith International Pvt. Ltd, Jalandhar vs. The Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 181/ASR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar15 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. Ravish Soodita No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/S Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., Mbd House, Central Circle-Ii, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaach6111J Assessee By : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.03.2017 Of Ld. Cit(A)-I, Jalandhar. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised In This Appeal: “1. That The Worthy Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-1, Jalandhar Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Assessee. 2. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Contention Of The Assessing Officer In Reopening The Case U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act And, Thus, Framing Of Assessment U/S 147 R.W.S.143(3)/153C At An Income Of Rs. 4,95,13,441/- Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 4,63,33,441/-. 3. That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Considering That There Was No Reason To Believe That The Income Of The

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP BENCH AT JALANDHAR Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Sh. Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No.181/Asr./2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s Holy Faith International Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Pvt. Ltd., MBD House, Central Circle-II, Railway Road, Jalandhar Jalandhar (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACH6111J Assessee by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Bhawani Shankar, DR Date of Hearing : 07.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 15.01.2019 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 20.…

Santoshsingh Hukumsingh Karnawat, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat

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

ITA 23/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.23 /Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/A.Y.:2012-13 Shri Santosh Singh Hukum Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnawat, Prop. Shilpa Exports, 402, Ward- 2(3)(8) Surat Parmukh Darshan Apartment, Rampara Main Road Opp. Patidar Bhawan Mahidharpura, Surat - 395 003. [Pan: Arapk 9181 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 143

…hird party has admitted that bills provided was merely accommodation bills as held by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of ACIT vs Akruti Dyeing and printing Mills Pvt. Ltd (Tax Appeal No.997/2008 dated 27.01.2009) and Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) [1980] 4 Taxman 29 (SC). The ld. Counsel further contended that no cross-examination of the parties of whom statement has been used against the assessee has been allowed by the AO. Therefore, there is a violation of principle of natural justice, hence, the credence of the Santoshsingh Hukumsingh Karnawat Vs. ITO 2(3)(8)Surat /I.T.A. No. 23/A…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ion. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere s…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ion. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere s…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…ion. In support of the same, reliance is placed upon the following judgments,: a. Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR (SC) 241 b. Vinod Solanki Vs. Union of India (2008) 16 SCC 535 (SC) c. Kishni Chand Chella Ram v CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) d. CIT V SMC Share Stock Brokers 288 ITR 345 (Del) e. CIT V S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43 (Del) f. CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd 295 ITR 105(Del) ITA Nos. 4964 to 4966/Del/2012 32 g- CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta 207 CTR 115 5.5 It is further submitted that it is settled law that where addition of undisclosed income was made on basis of mere s…

Radhika Garg, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Faridabad

In the result, ITA.No.2429/Del

ITA 4738/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal And Shri Sanjay Goel, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69

…e. Therefore, such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand 9 ITA.No.4738 & 2429/Del./2018 Smt. Radhika Garg, Faridabad & Smt. Nishika Aggarwal, Gurgaon. Chelaram 125 ITR 713. There is no other evidence available on record against the assessee so as to make the impugned addition. The broker who has sold the shares have not made any statement against the assessee. The A.O. has not brought any other material on record to justify the addition. Similar issue have been considered by ITAT, SMC-Bench in the group case of Shr…

Nishika Aggarwal, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.2429/Del

ITA 2429/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Vivek Bansal And Shri Sanjay Goel, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68Section 69

…e. Therefore, such statement cannot be read in evidence against the assessee. I rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand 9 ITA.No.4738 & 2429/Del./2018 Smt. Radhika Garg, Faridabad & Smt. Nishika Aggarwal, Gurgaon. Chelaram 125 ITR 713. There is no other evidence available on record against the assessee so as to make the impugned addition. The broker who has sold the shares have not made any statement against the assessee. The A.O. has not brought any other material on record to justify the addition. Similar issue have been considered by ITAT, SMC-Bench in the group case of Shr…

Jitinder Singh Chadha, New Delhi vs. Prcit-18, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2732/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiita No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. Cit-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabpc6181D Assessee By : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2018 Of Ld. Pr. Cit-18, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 55A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’ble Vice President and Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Judicial Member ITA No. 2732/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Mr. Jitindar Singh Chadha, Vs Pr. CIT-18, C-266, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110024 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABPC6181D Assessee by : Sh. R. S. Ahuja, CA Revenue by : Sh. Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 04.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2018 of ld. Pr. CIT-18, New De…

Rr Distributors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(3), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2718/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Shafiq Khan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. SL Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 68

…upply of Investigation Report to the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is against the principle of natural justice and contrary to law as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 at page no. 714. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, orders passed by the revenue authorities and the evidences produced by the assessee in shape of Paper Book, as aforesaid, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be reconsidered at the level of the AO. Accordingly, I set…

Pooja Yadav, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-33(5), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.5883, 6457, 6458 and 6459/Del

ITA 6459/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…any of these persons for indulging in taking accommodation entries. He has, therefore, submitted that such evidence cannot be read in evidence against the assessee and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chela Ram 125 ITR 713 (SC). He has submitted that for claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, the assessee shall have to prove twin conditions i.e. the income arise from the transfer of long term capital asset and being equity share in a company where the transfer of sale of such equity share is entered into on or after the date of which Chapter-VII of the Finance A…

Sneh Yadav, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-33(5), New Delhi

In the result, ITA.No.5883, 6457, 6458 and 6459/Del

ITA 6458/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…any of these persons for indulging in taking accommodation entries. He has, therefore, submitted that such evidence cannot be read in evidence against the assessee and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chela Ram 125 ITR 713 (SC). He has submitted that for claiming exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act, the assessee shall have to prove twin conditions i.e. the income arise from the transfer of long term capital asset and being equity share in a company where the transfer of sale of such equity share is entered into on or after the date of which Chapter-VII of the Finance A…