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 366,470 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

Pari Anil Gandhi, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(1)(1) Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 896/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 896 & 897/Rjt/2024 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Pari Anil Gandhi Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(1), C-702 Sadguru Vatika, Airport Road, 2- Aayakar Bhavan Race Course Ring Maruti Nagar, Rajkot - 360001 Road, Rajkot - 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bahpg7804E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 09 / 10 /2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05 / 01 /2026 आदेश/Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm; Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14, Is Directed Against Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi/Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 22/11/2024, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T. Act, On Dated 28/03/2022. 2. Since, The Issues Involved All These Appeals Are Common & Identical; Therefore, These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Are Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take The Lead Case In Ita No.896/Rjt/2024 For Assessment Year 2013-14. Ita No. 896&897/Rjt/2024 Pari Anil Gandhi Rajkot

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav Ld. SR. DR
Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 154Section 234Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ot satisfied with the genuineness of transaction. However, the assessee has explained that the information and transaction detail has be submitted and also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chella Ram vs CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 has held: "That the burden is on the Department to prove that the money belongs to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on record and the assessee could not be expected to call the concerned person in evidence to help the Department to discharge the burden that lay upon it". 9. The assessee has further objected for re-opening of an assessmen…

Rainbow Vanijya Pvt Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1891/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 44A

…a third party; hence, such presumption is inapplicable. The AO's failure to furnish copies ofseized material relied upon against the assessee amounts to violation of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC),. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), the Court held that though the proceedings under the Income are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert and cross- examine the evidence onwhich the department places its relian…

Deven Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 8/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…ult to predicate to what extent, the extraneous and irrelevant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact. 21.1 Similar observation has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (S.C.). Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the burden is on the department to show that the money belonged to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on records and the assessee could not be expected to put in the evidence to help the department to discharge the burden that lay upon it. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence…

Sudhir Chaudhry, Mathura vs. Dc/Ac Circle 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 246/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 131Section 143(2)Section 69A

…lt to predicate to what extent, the extraneous and irrelevant material has influenced the authority in arriving at the conclusion of fact. 21.1 Similar observation has been made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (S.C.). Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the burden is on the department to show that the money belonged to the assessee by bringing proper evidence on records and the assessee could not be expected to put in the evidence to help the department to discharge the burden that lay upon it. Therefore, in absence of any contrary evidence…

Meena Suresh Raithatha, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4813/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Deepak KanabarFor Respondent: Assessee by
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 65BSection 69

…essee' submission: i. CBDT instruction dated 18.12.2014 for gathering of credible evidence 7 Meena Suresh Raithatha ii. Furnishing of statement and cross examination is essential for sustaining / making an addition: * In Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713/4 Taxman 29 (SC) the Assessing Officer obtained information from a bank with regard to remittance of funds by the assessee. It was not disclosed but was used for the purpose of assessment. The Court held that, even though the proceedings under the Income-tax law were not governed by any confirmation or outside information were bound to produce i…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6525/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…ion of evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. 8.13 Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwa…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…ion of evidentiary rules does not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. 8.13 Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwal…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…not imply abrogation of natural justice. Even material which is otherwise admissible must still satisfy the minimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in ITA Nos.6523 to 6525/MUM/2025 Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an opportunity of rebuttal in a meaningful manner, which necessarily includes cross-examination where facts are disputed. 8.13 Considerable reliance has been placed on the alleged admission by the Rubberwal…

Priyanka Sandeep Runwal, Mumbai vs. The Dy Comm. of Income Tax, CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6524/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…inimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an proposed to be used against him, must be subject…

Priyanka Sandeep Runwal, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT CC-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6523/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…inimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an proposed to be used against him, must be subject…

Priyanka Sandeep Runwal, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle -4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of t

ITA 6522/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee ()

For Respondent: Mr. Vaibhav Mehta
Section 148

…inimum requirement of fairness when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou when used against an assessee. The Hon’ble Supreme Cou Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held (125 ITR 713) has unequivocally held that any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if any material collected behind the back of the assessee, if proposed to be used against him, must be subjected to an proposed to be used against him, must be subject…

Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 5900/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Kdjp Steels Private Limited, Vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Plot No.50, Flat No.A-201, Delhi. Parshav Vihar, Patpar Ganj, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Aacck6905F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. Advocate; Shri R.P. Mall, Advocate; Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca & Shri Madhur Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Parkash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2025

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…is placed on following case laws: i) SMILE Microfinance Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT (Madras High Court) in WP(C) No. 2078/2020 5.10 The appellant also seeks to rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishnichand Chellaram vs. CIT , reported in 125 ITR 713, wherein it has been held that any adverse material collected by the AO behind the back of the assessee is of no evidentiary value and is to be completely discarded and ignored. 9 6. The ld. Departmental Representative relied on the orders of the ld. AO and the Ld. CIT(A). 7. From examination of the record, in the light of the aforesaid rival c…

Alpesh K. Ajmera HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 18(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 4041/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 132Section 147Section 68Section 69

…to 6459/Del./2018 Shri Amar Nath Goenka, Delhi & Others. in evidence against C.I.T., No.5882/Del./20 18 24 ITA No. 4041/Mum/2025 Alpesh K. Ajmera HUF Mumbai. the assessee. I rely on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chela Ram 125 ITR 713 (SC). The A.O. did not mention any fact as to how the claim of assessee was sham or bogus. The assessee thus, satisfied the conditions of Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act. The broker through whom transactions have been carried out have not denied the transaction conducted on behalf of the assessee. It, therefore, appears that the addition is merely…

Nandkishore Telefilms & Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 7(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2563/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri. Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132(4)Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…larly the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries V. CIT, 281 CTR 241 along with following decisions. 1. H.R. Metha Vs. ACIT, 387 ITR 561 (Bom HC) 2. C Vasantlal& co. Vs. CIT, 45 ITR 206 (SC) 3. KishinchandChellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) 4. CIT Vs. Ashish International, ITA No. 4299 of 2009. 5. CIT Vs. Ashwani Gupta, 322 ITR 396 (Bom) 6.3 It was contented by Ld. AR that in the statement of Shri Vipul Vidur Bhatt, he has replied regarding unsecured loans to only one party M/s Moraj Building concepts Pvt Ltd., and he has nowhere mentioned the name of the assessee company. Shri…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…elies on the following judgements on the identical issue. A) The Honourable Supreme Court, (2015)281 CTR 214/ 127 DTR 241 (SC) in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE; B) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v.CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) C) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi Vs. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) 7. That, the Note book/diary insofar as maintained by the staff without the knowledge of the asses…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…elies on the following judgements on the identical issue. A) The Honourable Supreme Court, (2015)281 CTR 214/ 127 DTR 241 (SC) in the case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE; B) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v.CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC); 5 आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) C) The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-7, New Delhi Vs. Odeon Builders (P.) Ltd, [2019] 110 taxmann.com 64 (SC) 7. That, the Note book/diary insofar as maintained by the staff without the knowledge of the asses…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…ltural Income Tax in 209 ITR 821. The Kerala High Court, while enunciating the principle, followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff in 39 STC 478. (vi) In the case of Kishinchand Chelaram vs. CIT in 125 ITR 713, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to consider the evidences which were recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine was given to the assessee. (vii) In the case of Andeman Timber Industry vs. CCE in 281 CTR 241 (SC), the Hon’ble Sppreme Court deleted the addition where the right to cross-examine was not allowed…

M/S Ls Contractors Private Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 30, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…ltural Income Tax in 209 ITR 821. The Kerala High Court, while enunciating the principle, followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff in 39 STC 478. (vi) In the case of Kishinchand Chelaram vs. CIT in 125 ITR 713, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to consider the evidences which were recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine was given to the assessee. (vii) In the case of Andeman Timber Industry vs. CCE in 281 CTR 241 (SC), the Hon’ble Sppreme Court deleted the addition where the right to cross-examine was not allowed…

Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4093/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Jsm Oilfields Services Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Farm No.14, 8Th Avenue, Radhey Circle-13(1), Mohan Drive, Gadaipur, New Delhi New Delhi-110017. Pan-Aabcj1500C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Anil Jain, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.11.2025

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

…ment folder nor were provided to the assessee and since no opportunity of cross-examination was given to the assessee reliance on such statements cannot be placed. For this, he placed reliance on the following judgements :- (i) Krishna Chand Chela Ram vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC); (ii) Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise Appeal No.4228 of 2006 dated 02.09.2015; (iii) CIT vs Odean Builder Pvt. Ltd. 418 ITR 315 (SC); (iv) PCIT vs Ace Technologies Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 45 (SC); (v) Pr. CIT, Central-2 vs JPM Tools Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 44 (Delhi); and (vi) Pr. CIT vs Kishore Kumar Moha…

Vista Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2091/KOL/2025[2022-2023]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2025AY 2022-2023

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 250

…third party; hence, such presumption is inapplicable. The AO's failure to furnish copies of seized material relied upon against the assessee amounts to violation of natural justice, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC),. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), the Court held that though the proceedings under the Income are not governed by the strict rules of evidence, the department is bound to afford an opportunity to controvert and cross- examine the evidence on which the department places its relia…