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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circ;E-2, Rajkot vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani, Rajkot

ITA 248/RJT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Jun 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133ASection 153A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, राजकोट न्यायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH: RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 248 & 249/RJT/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: (2018-19 & 2019-20) Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central circle- 2, Rajkot, "Amruta Estate", 2nd Floor, MG Road, Rajko-360 001 Vs. Chetan Nandlal Sangani 309, Shalin Complex, Madhavi Chowk, Soni Bazar, Rajkot-360 001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AMVPS 5788 E (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) निर्धारिती की ओर से/Appellant b…

DCIT, Circle 22(2), New Delhi vs. Sahil Vachani, Delhi

Appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 2604/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Vice Presdient (), Shri Vikas Awasthy& Shriavdhesh Kumar Mishraआअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17)

For Appellant: S/Shri Anuj Garg & Narpat Singh, Sr.DRFor Respondent: S/Shri Rohan Khare & Priyam
Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण िद"ी पीठ “ जी ”, िद"ी "ी महावीरिसंह, उपा"" (तृतीयसद"), "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेशकुमारिम"ा, लेखाकार सद"के सम" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”, DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESDIENT (THIRD MEMBER), SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER& SHRIAVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आअसं.2604/िद"ी/2023(िन.व. 2016-17) ITA N0.2604/DEL/2023(A.Y.2016-17) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 22(2), R.No 225E, 2nd Floor, CR Building, IP Estate, New Delhi 110002 ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. Sahil Vachani, S-43, Panchsheel Park, Delhi 110017 PAN: ADJPV-6597-K .....…

The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Morbi vs. M/S. Kishan Plus Minarals, Rajkot

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

ITA 124/RJT/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं /.Ita No.124/Rjt/2021 With Cross Objection No.02/Rjt/2022 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2019-20 Acit, Cent.Cir.2 M/S.Kishan Plus Minerals बनाम Rajkot. Jetpar Road, Nr. Pavadiyali Temple, Jasmatgadh Vs. Morbi. Pan : Aaqfk4689P (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) : (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. Counsel राज"व क" ओर से/Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date Of Hearing : 29/01/2025 (Originally Heard Refixed On 05.06.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2025 Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini:

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ld. CounselFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

…Minerals ITA No.124/RJT/2021 with Co.02 (AY : 2019-20) 19 down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon’ble Apex Court In the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahara India vs. CIT (2008) 14 SCC 151,had held that “The underlying principle of natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e. fair play in action. The aim of rules of na…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 679/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…O has indispensible right to know the evidence used against him. The AO as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal principle as squarely principle as squarely underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party loade…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 678/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…O has indispensible right to know the evidence used against him. The AO as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal principle as squarely principle as squarely underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party loade…

M/S. Lalitha Jewellery Mart Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 677/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shrimanoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Mr. D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT
Section 132Section 153A

…O has indispensible right to know the evidence used against him. The AO as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal as well as the CIT (A) has violated this cardinal principle as squarely principle as squarely underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and underscored in Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party host of other decisions. Apart from a bald statement of third party loade…

DCIT, Central Circle 1, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 724/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

DCIT, Central Circle 2, Rajkot vs. Shri Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot

ITA 723/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot.

ITA 581/RJT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle -2, Rajkot

ITA 547/RJT/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri D.M Rindani, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld.CIT (DR)
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 546/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

Mukesh Manekchand Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT-ACIT, Central Circle-2, Rajkot

ITA 545/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148

…h was strongly objected. In this regard, the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 241 (SC) and Hon'ble Apex Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713. 15. On merit, the assessee also submitted before the assessing officer thatthere is neither any evidence found at all from premises of RK Group nor any statement from it showing and stating that assessee had received on-money for sale of impugned apartments, there is no such acknowledgement/signature/even an indication from assessee or document…

Shri Sanjaybhai Ramjibhai Patel, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

ITA 454/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…t. 5 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order disregarding the honorable Supreme Court decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC, KishanchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and the decision of jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of LATE LAXMANBHAI S. PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 327 ITR 290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT…

Smt. Shital Sanjaybhai Patel, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Bhavnagar

ITA 453/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…t. 5 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order disregarding the honorable Supreme Court decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC, KishanchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and the decision of jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of LATE LAXMANBHAI S. PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 327 ITR 290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT…

Shri Jignesh Ramjibhai Patel, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

ITA 452/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 452/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015

For Appellant: Shri TusharHemani, Sr. Advocate with Shri Parimalsinh B ParmarFor Respondent: Shri B.P Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)Section 68

…t. 5 The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order disregarding the honorable Supreme Court decision in the case of Andaman Timber Industries (2015) 281 CTR 214 (SC, KishanchandChellaram v. CIT [1980] 125 ITR 713 (SC) and the decision of jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of LATE LAXMANBHAI S. PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2010) 327 ITR 290. 6. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - VI erred in law and on facts in passing appeal order wrongly relying on the decision of honorable Supreme Court in the case of SumtiDaya vs. CIT…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/S K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd

ITA/529/2023HC Delhi31 May 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Monica BenjaminFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68Section 80I

…ority though statements of those witnesses were made a basis of the impugned order amounted to a serious flaw which makes the order a nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Also in the case of Kishanich and Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) in which it was held that any material collected at the back of the assessee and not confronted and no opportunity given to cross-examine, such material cannot be relied upon against the assessee. .....‖ 40. As noted above, the CIT(A) also faulted the AO for drawing an adverse inference against the Assessee on the basis of certain…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. M/S K.R. Pulp and Papers Ltd

ITA-529/2023HC Delhi31 May 2025
For Appellant: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Ms. Monica BenjaminFor Respondent: Mr. Gautam Jain and Mr. Manish Yadav
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 260ASection 68Section 80I

…ority though statements of those witnesses were made a basis of the impugned order amounted to a serious flaw which makes the order a nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice. Also in the case of Kishanich and Chellaram v. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) in which it was held that any material collected at the back of the assessee and not confronted and no opportunity given to cross-examine, such material cannot be relied upon against the assessee. .....‖ 40. As noted above, the CIT(A) also faulted the AO for drawing an adverse inference against the Assessee on the basis of certain…

Rishabh Steel Supplier, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 414/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…nt has been relied upon for ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. 13. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, submitted that a search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the comp…

Priyansi Corporation, Dist Rajkot vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for

ITA 408/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023

Section 143(3)Section 250

…has been relied upon for 19 ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. 13. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, submitted that a search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the comp…

Narendrakumar Bhanwerlal Nimbavat HUF, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

In the result, all these appeals filed by the different assessees, are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 407/RJT/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrids Hearing) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.400/Rjt/2023 Assessment Year: (2021-22)

Section 143(3)Section 250

…nt has been relied upon for ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others making the additions is in violation of natural justice, hence cannot be sustained. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Krishnachand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Andaman Timber Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC) has held that additions without providing the opportunity of cross examination is in violation of natural justice. 13. On the other hand, Learned DR for the revenue, submitted that a search u/s. 132 of the Act was carried out at the premises of the comp…