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 367,154 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

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3093/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cted such statements. The statements recorded were not supplied to the assessee and no opportunity for cross examination was given violating cross examination. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [125 ITR 713]. He also observed that assessee submitted the confirmations from the parties, filed audit reports of the parties along with the copy of ITR and bank statements and therefore since the assessee has discharged its primary onus, the onus had shifted to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not made any inquiries from the alleged lende…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3092/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cted such statements. The statements recorded were not supplied to the assessee and no opportunity for cross examination was given violating cross examination. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [125 ITR 713]. He also observed that assessee submitted the confirmations from the parties, filed audit reports of the parties along with the copy of ITR and bank statements and therefore since the assessee has discharged its primary onus, the onus had shifted to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not made any inquiries from the alleged lende…

ACIT 24(3), Mumbai vs. Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3091/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Haridas BhattFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cted such statements. The statements recorded were not supplied to the assessee and no opportunity for cross examination was given violating cross examination. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [125 ITR 713]. He also observed that assessee submitted the confirmations from the parties, filed audit reports of the parties along with the copy of ITR and bank statements and therefore since the assessee has discharged its primary onus, the onus had shifted to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not made any inquiries from the alleged lende…

ITO 13(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Constructors P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3754/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…he assessing officer the learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee. In support of his submission the landed AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (a) On the issue of cross examination; (i) Kishin Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT…

Shreedham Constructions P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 13(2)(3), Kalyan

ITA 2948/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singh

Section 131wSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 68

…he assessing officer the learned Commissioner (Appeals) granted relief to the assessee. In support of his submission the landed AR of the assessee relied upon the following decision; (a) On the issue of cross examination; (i) Kishin Chand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713(SC) (ii) Anand Ram Timber Industries Vs CCE ,Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 (SC) (iii) H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT 378 ITR 561(Bom) (iv) Sunil Prakash Vs ACIT ITA No. 6494/M/2014 (b) On addition under section 68 of Act (i) CIT Vs Gagandeep Infrastructure (P) Ltd 349 ITR 680(Bombay), (ii) CIT Vs Orchard industries Private Ltd ITA 1433 of 2014(Bom), (iii) CIT…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…en 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) 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 this finding was the letter,…

Hiren Pharma & Surgicals, Chennai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 4(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2007/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Mr.B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.RFor Respondent: 07.11.2017
Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

…ted should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of cross –examination, if requested for. It was not at all offered to the assessee. I, therefore by placing reliance on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT in [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and also the judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. SMC SHARE BROKERS LTD. in [2007] 288 ITR 345 (Del) wherein held that the ld. Assessing Officer cannot take an adverse view on the basis of the statement of the third parties. If the statement of the third parties are discarded or ignored while considering the evidences on re…

Subhash V.Kanekar, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1748/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. B. Pruseth, CIT (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…ompleting the assessment u/s 143(3) without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses 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 vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006). 3. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition u/s 69C of Rs.23,16,437/- being ad hoc 15% of purchases of Rs.1,54,42,911/-. 4. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case and…

DCIT Cir 6(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Faco Fastners P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is allowed in part

ITA 1641/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit Cir 6(3)(1) Vs. M/S. Faco Fastners Pvt. R.No.506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Ltd., Bhavan 196, Mutton Street M.K.Road, Mumbai – 400 Null Bazar, 020 Mumbai – 400 003 Pan/Gir No. Aabcf2490D Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…igh Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment date 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Bom)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA I fo.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pi. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/20ll) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (I A No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Raj…

Delicate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

…filed by the payer. Without following Principles of Natural Justice various materials are used without confronting the same to the assessee, which needs to be expunged as highlighted by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713). Only show cause notice and assesses reply thereto should be considered, without considering any other extraneous material. The material seized from third party premises, cannot be directly considered u/s 153A of the Act, without following the procedure prescribed u/s 153C of the Act. The Ld. AR further drew the attention of the Bench to the fol…

Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3185/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

…filed by the payer. Without following Principles of Natural Justice various materials are used without confronting the same to the assessee, which needs to be expunged as highlighted by Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713). Only show cause notice and assesses reply thereto should be considered, without considering any other extraneous material. The material seized from third party premises, cannot be directly considered u/s 153A of the Act, without following the procedure prescribed u/s 153C of the Act. The Ld. AR further drew the attention of the Bench to the fol…

ITO 6(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Jostars Orogotech P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the Revenue stands partly allowed and cross objection by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1288/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Shaktijit Dey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri J.P.BairagraFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

…axman 17 9 ITA No.1288 & CO 191/Mum/2017. M/s.Jostars Orogotech Private Limited. 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment dated 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Bom)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA No.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/2011) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (ITA No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Rajiv…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Panache Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 3610/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Acit 4 (3)(1) Vs. M/S. Panache Exports Pvt. Ltd., R.No.649, 6Th Floor, 108A, Paravati Industrial Premises Aayakar Bhavan Co-Op Society Ltd., Mumbai – 400 020 Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp6106D Appellant) .. Respondent) Co No.211/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year :2008-09) M/S. Panache Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit 4 (3)(1) R.No.649, 6Th Floor, 108A, Paravati Industrial Premises Co-Op Society Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Lower Parel (W), Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 013 Pan/Gir No. Aaacp6106D Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 143(3)

…017 & CO No.211/Mum/2017 M/s. Panache Exports Pvt.Ltd., basis of a demand, is a serious flaw which makes order a nullity, as it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 6.3.10. In the case of Kishinch and Chellaram vs. CIT, Bombay City II [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC), it has been held by the Apex Court that in income tax proceedings when an evidence is to be used against the assessee and if it is not shown to the assessee and if no opportunity to controvert is given to the assessee, that evidence is not admissible. It further held-the department ought to have called upon the manager to produce the docume…

Asst CIT Cir 6(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Exim Trade Links (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1672/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Asst. Cit Cir 6 (2)(2) Vs. M/S. Exim Trade Links R.No.563, Aayakar Bhavan (India) P. Ltd., M.K. Road, Churchgate 31/33, Nishanpada, Dongri Mumbai – 400 020 Mumbai – 400 009 Pan/Gir No. Aaace8448B Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 69C

…igh Court decision in case of CIT Vs Nangalia Fabrics P. Ltd. (2014) 220 Taxman 17 12. Hon. Mumbai ITAT judgment date 17.6.2016 in the case of M/s. Om Shree International Vs ACIT in ITA No. 3304/M/2014 and ITA No. 4575/M/2012. 13. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT-125 ITR 713-SC. 14. H.R. Mehta Vs ACIT in ITA No.58 of 2001 (Bom) 15. CIT Vs. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. [372 ITR 619 (Bom)2015] 16. ACIT Vs. Ramila Pravin Shah (ITA I fo.5246/Mum/2013) 17. ACIT Vs.Tristar Jewellery Exports Pi. Ltd. (ITA No.7593/Mum/20ll) 18. ITO Vs. Deepak Popatlal Gala (I A No.5920/Mum/2013 and ITA No.6203/Mum/2013) 19. DCIT Vs.Raj…

M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6251/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. M/S. Meditronics India Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax Officer, 41, Pocket–Ii, Jasola, Vs. Ward : 6 (3), D E L H I – 110 025. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm 3622 Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Adv.; &For Respondent: Shri Gudrun Nehra, Sr. D. R
Section 147

…d persons and without confronting the cross examination, despite assessee’s request made and thus have no evidentiary value and has to be excluded :- 14 I. T. Appeal No. 6251/Del/2012 Assessment Year : 2004-2005. Kishnichand Chellarain Vs. CIT i. reported in 125 ITR 713 R.B. Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatehchand ii. Nursing Das Vs. Settlement Commission reported in 176 ITR 169 at page 174. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ashwani Gupta iii. 322 ITR 396 (Del); J.T. (India) Exports Vs. Union of India iv. 262 ITR 269 (Del) (FB) CIT vs Dharam Pal Prem Chand Ltd. v. 295 ITR 105(Del) CIT Vs Pradeep Kumar Gupta vi. 207…

Mrs. Alka Goel, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3065/DEL/2014[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 1999-2000

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3065/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 1999-2000 Alka Goel, Vs Income Tax Officer, 32-E, Sainik Farm, Ward-13(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajpg1271G Assessee By : Sh. A. Mathur, Ca Revenue By : Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 20.02.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xvi, Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. A. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 151oSection 2Section 68

…ukreja in I.T.A. No. 335 & 336/Chd/2015 (ITAT, Chandiragh Bench, Chandigarh). 130 to 135 vi) K.K. Loomba, Mrs. Uma Looma vs CIT & Others 241 ITR - 152 (Delhi) vii) Rajneet Singh vs. ACIT 120 TTJ 517 (ITAT, Delhi) 136 to 137 viii) Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 138 to 142 7 Alka Goel 5. It has been stated in the said application that the fresh documents are very important for proper representation of the appeal and a request has been made to admit these additional evidences. It has further been submitted that the assessee could not furnish those documents during the course of assessment proceeding…

Smt. Sumandevi Parmatmaprasad Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -10(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, Revenue’s appeal as well assessee’s CO, both are dismissed

ITA 927/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jun 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri K. Madhusudan, Sr.D.R
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147

…ment of Shri Mukesh Choksi without allowing the opportunity to cross examine him. Sumandevi P. Agrawal vs. ITO Asst.Year –2005-06 Such a statement was binding upon the maker of the statement and not to the third party as held in case of Kishanchand Chellaram (125 ITR 713) and Maulik Shah (307 ITR 137) (a) Statement of Mukesh Choksi has not been given to the appellant. The appellant was not providing any opportunity to cross examine him. Therefore the impugned addition made authorities below upon such statement is liable to be deleted. (b) Authorities below have failed to appreciate that the purchase of shares wer…

Uv Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6337/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 147Section 148

…evidences were filed and Page 8 of 10 ITA Nos. 6336, 6337/Del/2016 UV Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO assessee has not been afforded to cross examine the statement of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 held that when any incriminating material collected at the back of the assessee, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee unless same is confronted to assessee and right to cross examination have been provided to the assessee. In the absence of any details mentioned in the assessment order and that no finding to that effect have…

Uv Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 6336/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 May 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 147Section 148

…evidences were filed and Page 8 of 10 ITA Nos. 6336, 6337/Del/2016 UV Associates Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO assessee has not been afforded to cross examine the statement of Shri Aseem Kumar Gupta Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 held that when any incriminating material collected at the back of the assessee, the same cannot be read in evidence against the assessee unless same is confronted to assessee and right to cross examination have been provided to the assessee. In the absence of any details mentioned in the assessment order and that no finding to that effect have…

Sri Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitor'S Trust, Nadia vs. CIT(Exemptions), Kolkata

In the result the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1165/KOL/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] I.T.A No. 1165/Kol/2016

For Appellant: Shri A.K.Tibrewal, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT(DR)
Section 12ASection 133ASection 80G

…ld be held to be a nullity. In this regard reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) and Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC). The following decisions rendered in the context of section 12AA(3) of the Act where identical proposition as above were also referred to : 7 8 Sri Mayapur Dham Pilgrim and Visitor’s Trust 1) Jha Educational Trust vs CIT(E) in ITA Nos.931-933/Kol/2016 Judgment dated 17.03.2017 2) Bhutoria Memorial Trust vs CIT(E) in ITA No.537/Kol/2016 Ju…