Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Satnam Steel Traders, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 1, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed where the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.3555/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) फनाभ/ Satnam Steel Traders, Dcit, Circle-1, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Near Kota Stone, Vs. Kalyan-Bhiwandi Road, Nagar, Khadakpara, Village Rajnoli, Bhiwandi, Kalyan (W) – 421301. Thane – 421302. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagfs8329C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) आयकर अपीऱ सुं./I.T.A. No.3618/M/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-2010) Dcit, Circle-1, फनाभ/ Satnam Steel Traders, 1St Floor, Mohan Plaza, Wayle Near Kota Stone, Vs. Nagar, Khadakpara, Kalyan-Bhiwandi Road, Kalyan (W) – 421301. Village Rajnoli, Bhiwandi, Thane – 421302. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aagfs8329C (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

…be used as evidence against the assessee unless opportunity for cross examination was given to the assessee. This view has been taken in the following judicial pronouncements:  ITO vs. Permanand [2007] 107 TTJ (Jd) 395  Kishichand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC)  Jagdamba Trading Co. Vs. ITO [2007] 107 TTJ (Jd) 398  Prakas Chand Nahata vs. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 134 (MP) 7. In view of the above discussion and keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case vis-a-vis the nature of the assessee’s business and the GP and the NP disclosed by the other business houses engaged in sim…

DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nihar Equipment Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…the Court is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under s 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” 6.6 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 held that- The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at this finding was the letter of 18th Feb. 1955 said to have been addressed by the manager of the Punjab National Bank Ltd to the ITO. Now, it is difficult to see how letter could at all be relied upon by the Tribunal as a material piece of evidence suppor…

Nihaar Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 13(1)(1)

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and that of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ( Account Member)

…the Court is entitled to interfere. A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under s 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse.” 6.6 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 held that- The only evidence on which the Tribunal could rely for the purpose of arriving at this finding was the letter of 18th Feb. 1955 said to have been addressed by the manager of the Punjab National Bank Ltd to the ITO. Now, it is difficult to see how letter could at all be relied upon by the Tribunal as a material piece of evidence suppor…

Col Amarjit D Nagi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 20

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

…not been given an opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statement has been so recorded. This is in total violation of principles of natural justice. 14. For this purpose learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 – Supreme Court H.R. Mehta 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) Sahara India (Firm)300 ITR 403 (SC) 15. From the record, we also found that all the details in relation to the assets leased to Western Pacques India Limited are on the records of the AO. These Nutech Corporate Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2…

The DCIT 8(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Nutech Coporate Services Ltd (Formerly Known As Iit Capital Services Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

…not been given an opportunity to cross examine the persons whose statement has been so recorded. This is in total violation of principles of natural justice. 14. For this purpose learned AR placed reliance on the following decisions:- Kishinchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries Civil Appeal No.4228 of 2006 – Supreme Court H.R. Mehta 72 taxmann.com 110 (Bom) Sahara India (Firm)300 ITR 403 (SC) 15. From the record, we also found that all the details in relation to the assets leased to Western Pacques India Limited are on the records of the AO. These Nutech Corporate Services Ltd., vs ITO 8(2…

ITO 14(2)(3), Mumbai vs. K. Ashok Kumar & Co., Mumbai

In the result the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ravish Sood

…the appellant in this case. However, the AO did not provide the opportunity of cross examination of said parties to the appellant in spite of specific request made by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) has held that before the income-tax authorities could rely upon any evidence, they are bound to produce it before the assessee so that the assessee could controvert the statements contained in it by asking for an opportunity to cross examine the persons giving such evidence. The law pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land…

ACIT 12(2)(2), Mumbai vs. I & E Trade Consultants P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.798/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Acit -12(2)(2), M/S I&E Trade बनाम/ Room No. 363, Consultants Pvt. Ltd., V. 3 Rd Floor,, 10 Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Shree Puri Tower, M.K. Road, Soniwadi Shimpoli Road, Mumbai – 400 020. Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aabct9239N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

…t proceedings. The A.O. relied upon the material without confronting the same to the assessee, therefore, such material becomes impermissible as evidence in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishan Chand Chelaram v. CIT, reported in 125 ITR 713 (SC). Thus, it was further submitted by the assessee that the statement of one Sh. Rajendra Bhimrajka recorded by the Revenue at the back of the assessee cannot be relied upon because no opportunity had been given to the assessee for rebuttal. It was also submitted that the reasons recorded by the A.O. were supplied at the fag end of the year, he…

Heeralal Meghraj Doshi, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(2), Mumbai

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

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Amit Shukla (Jm)

…— wherein it was held that rejection of request to cross examine person searched and on whose statement reliance is placed, the same would vitiate assessment/additions being made in violation of principles of natural justice. b) CIT v. Kishenchand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 (SC) — documents relied upon at the back of the assessee cannot be wed as evidence for making addition. c) Laxman S Patel 174 Taxman 206 (Guj) - The legal effect of the statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and without furnishing the copy thereof to the assessee or without giving an opportunity of cross-examination, if the addition…

Asst CIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm Acit – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 Lt Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 Pan/Gir No. Aaafm1677M Appellant) .. Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B”, BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JM ACIT – 25(2), Mumbai Vs. M/s. Metcraft Engineering Corporation, 601-602, Siddarth Arcade, 3 LT Road, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 092 PAN/GIR No. AAAFM1677M Appellant) .. Respondent) Revenue by Shri S.R.Kirtane Assessee by Dr. K. Shivaram Date of Hearing 08/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement 15 /02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M): This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of CIT(A) for the Assessment year 2010-11 in the matter of order passed u/s.143(3) of the IT Act. 2. The revenue has…

ITO 31(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Manjula S. Shah, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalassessment Year: 2009-10 Income Tax Officer-31(2)(3), Mrs. Manjula S. Shah, Room No.704, C-11, Prop. Of M/S Eastment बनाम/ Pratayaksha Kar Bhavan, Chemicals, 3/202, Rishabh Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Mansion, S.V.Road, Nr. St. Bandra(East), John School, Mumbai-400051 Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aapps3790Q

…raw material purchased in the execution of contract and cross verification with the MCGM Authorities, is totally out of place, In this regard I would like to refer and rely on the decision of Supreme Court in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 where it was held 23 Mrs. Manjula S. Shah "1. The letters, dated 14-2-1955 and 9-3-1959, did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could legitimately take into account for the purpose of arriving at the finding that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 was remitted by the assessee from its Madras Office, and if these two letters were el…

ACIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Chirag Construction, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-25(1), M/S Chirag Construction Room No.202, 02Nd Floor, Company, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, 105, Gopal Puri, S.V.Road, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Borivali (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400066 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) (""यथ" /Respondent) Pan. No.Aacfc7646N

…raw material purchased in the execution of contract and cross verification with the MCGM Authorities, is totally out of place, In this regard I would like to refer and rely on the decision of Supreme Court in the case Kishinchand Chellaram vs CIT reported in 125 ITR 713 where it was held "1. The letters, dated 14-2-1955 and 9-3-1959, did not constitute any material evidence which the Tribunal could legitimately take into account for the purpose of arriving at the finding that the amount of Rs. 1,07,350 was remitted by the assessee from its Madras Office, and if these two letters were eliminated from considerati…