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

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2274/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
Section 131Section 132

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even with…

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2273/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even wit…

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2272/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even wit…

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2271/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even wit…

Arvind Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2270/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even wit…

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee(s) are allowed

ITA 2269/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even wit…

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

ITA 2267/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2016-17
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:-"It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even witho…

Masilamani Nandagopal, Chennai vs. ACIT, CC-3(1), Chennai

ITA 2265/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Mr.B. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Mr.M. Murali, CIT
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…erning the law of evidence can in no way interfered and could not be by the Income Tax Act provisions and neither the authorities functioning under the Income Tax Act has any discretion in such matters. The Supreme Court in the judgment Kishan Chand Chellaram 125 ITR 713 at page 720 which is also followed in the judgments cited by the petitioner in the case of Roger Enterprises (P) Ltd. (supra) and in the case of Brij Bhushan Singhal (supra), held as follows:- "It is true that the proceedings under the Income Tax Act law are not governed by the strict rules of evidence and therefore, it may be said that even with…

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3), New Ward 3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ided, the addition was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements, including Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)], Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)], Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)], PCIT v. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.), and CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj.), to contend that additions based solely on third-party statements without cross- examination were invalid. The assessee also questioned the legality of the…

Ratnadeep Infrastructure Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Old Ward 3(1)(3) New Ward3(1)(2)), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…ided, the addition was vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice. The assessee placed reliance on various judicial pronouncements, including Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE [(2015) 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC)], Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)], Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [26 ITR 775 (SC)], PCIT v. Kanubhai Maganlal Patel [2017] 79 taxmann.com 257 (Guj.), and CIT v. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann.com 281 (Guj.), to contend that additions based solely on third-party statements without cross- examination were invalid. The assessee also questioned the legality of the…

Yogendrakumar Ramavtar Agarwal, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for stati...

ITA 882/SRT/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Oct 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Yogendrakumar Ramavtar Ito, Ward-1(2)(5), Agarwal, Surat Current Jurisdiction: 2053-Mahaveer Textile Market, Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2)(1), Ring Road, Textile Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Surat-395002. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aarpa 7623 C Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA
Section 147Section 148Section 69Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH “SMC” SURAT BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2009-2010 Yogendrakumar Ramavtar ITO, Ward-1(2)(5), Agarwal, Surat Current Jurisdiction: 2053-Mahaveer Textile Market, Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(1), Ring Road, Textile Area, Aayakar Bhavan, Near Majura Surat-395002. Gate, Opp. New Civil Hospital, Surat-395001 PAN NO. AARPA 7623 C Appellant Respondent : Mr. Rasesh Shah, CA Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. J.K. Chandnani, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06/10/2025 Date of pronouncement : 30/10/2025 ORDER PER OM PR…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” d) Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) “Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination” ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others e) Sona Builders vs Union of India (2001) 251ITR 197-SC In this case, where the assessee was given only three days to respond, the court held that there had been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice, and ther…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 714/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” d) Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) “Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination” ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others e) Sona Builders vs Union of India (2001) 251ITR 197-SC In this case, where the assessee was given only three days to respond, the court held that there had been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice, and ther…

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dlf Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 713/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” d) Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) “Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination” ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others e) Sona Builders vs Union of India (2001) 251ITR 197-SC In this case, where the assessee was given only three days to respond, the court held that there had been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice, and ther…

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 677/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” d) Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) “Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination” ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others e) Sona Builders vs Union of India (2001) 251ITR 197-SC In this case, where the assessee was given only three days to respond, the court held that there had been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice, and ther…

Dlf Limited, Delhi vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

…4 or 21 of the Constitution of India” c) R.B Shreeram Durga Prasad & Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (1969) 176 ITR 169 (SC) “Order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is void and nullity.” d) Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) “Authorities cannot use the statement without giving an opportunity of cross examination” ITA No.713/Del/2024 & Others e) Sona Builders vs Union of India (2001) 251ITR 197-SC In this case, where the assessee was given only three days to respond, the court held that there had been a gross breach of the principles of natural justice, and ther…

Hemant Naresh Agarwal, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir. 4, Surat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/SRT/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Surat24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआ.(खो और ज).सं /It(Ss)A No.68 & 70/Srt/2023 Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2018-19 (Physical Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Hemant Naresh Agarwal बनाम/ Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Vs. Surat Room No.508, 5Th Floor, Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Surat-395 010 Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.170/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hemant Naresh Agarwal Assistant Commissioner Of बनाम/ 701, Shree Shyam Awas, Bhatar Income-Tax, Central Circle-4, Vs. Road, Near Vidhya Bharti School, Surat, Aaykar Bhawan, Surat-395 010 Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Auppa 9003 J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Kiran K. Shah राज" की ओर से /Revenue By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr & Shri Kevin Langaliya, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 24/10/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292CSection 69

…dent strongly urges that no addition ought to be made unless an opportunity to cross examine the third party is given whose records is relied upon. The Respondent relies following decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) (SC) and CL Alwar vs. Jalan Hard Cock Ltd. 1.12 The Respondent urges that, in the block assessment proceedings, no addition ought to be made unless there is specific material evidence of actual payment of alleged on money. The Respondent relies on following decisions.  CIT vs Kabul Chawla [380 ITR 573] (Del HC)(SLP Dismissed in SC – 380 ITR (ST…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1999/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…ation not provided, the same renders the assessment invalid. For this proposition, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) The Ld. AR in this regard submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross examine which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons: a) That Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri has only identified the JPACK ledger pertaining to the assessee and that ther…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, CC-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1998/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…ation not provided, the same renders the assessment invalid. For this proposition, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) The Ld. AR in this regard submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross examine which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons: a) That Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri has only identified the JPACK ledger pertaining to the assessee and that ther…

M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, Tirupur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Chennai

In the result, captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1997/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1996 To 1999/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2018-19 To 2021-22 V. M/S. Sabari Diamonds & Jewels, The Dcit, 6, Sabari Street, Central Circle-3(3), Binny Compound, Chennai. Tirupur-641 601. [Pan: Abgfs 4243 Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.T. Banusekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)(e)

…ation not provided, the same renders the assessment invalid. For this proposition, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: Andaman Timber Industries v CCE [2015] 281 CTR 241 (SC) Kishinchand Chellaram v CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) The Ld. AR in this regard submitted that the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings had specifically requested for an opportunity to cross examine which was denied by the Assessing Officer for the following reasons: a) That Shri.Suresh Kumar Khatri has only identified the JPACK ledger pertaining to the assessee and that ther…