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

Mahavir Impex, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 406/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…

Oswal Agricomm Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 404/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…

Oswal Petrochem, Gandhidham vs. DCIT, CC-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 402/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

…s been relied upon for 19 ITA NO. 400/Rjt/2023&402-408 Shri Ramji Hamir Virda with 7 others 20 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…

Shri Ramji Hamir Virda, Gandhidham vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Rajkot

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

ITA 400/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…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 2(4), Bengaluru vs. Sri Adichunchanagiri Shikhana Trust, Mandya

ITA 1207/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 69ASection 69C

…Nagaraj cannot be considered as a reliable witness. More so, when the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. In this regard, we also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) wherein it was held that evidence collected from witness cannot be considered without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 218. We have also carefully gone through the statement of Mr. G H Nagraj, Secretary of the assessee trust. It was mainly discussed in Page no 64, 65, 74, 75 and 76 of assessment order. He was asked to…

M/S. Sri . Adichunchanagiri Shilkshana Trust, Mandya vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1096/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Vidya K., Jt.CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 69C

…Nagaraj cannot be considered as a reliable witness. More so, when the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross-examine him. In this regard, we also place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) wherein it was held that evidence collected from witness cannot be considered without giving opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. 218. We have also carefully gone through the statement of Mr. G H Nagraj, Secretary of the assessee trust. It was mainly discussed in Page no 64, 65, 74, 75 and 76 of assessment order. He was asked to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 12, Pune vs. Varun Jain, Pune

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

ITA 2720/PUN/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 May 2025

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamorecross Objection No.14/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2720/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varun Jain, The Acit, P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, V Circle-12, Pune. Pune – 411014. S. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Acit, Varun Jain, Circle-12, Pune. Vs. P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar - Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under C.O.No.14/Pun/2025 [A] & Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 [R]

Section 10(35)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148ASection 250Section 253(4)

…17.10.2024. C.O.No.14/PUN/2025 [A] & ITA No.2720/PUN/2024 [R] 6. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in case of Goldiam International Ltd. vs. DCIT (ITA No. 3218/Mum/2023) dated 05.04.2024. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of the Kishnichand Chellaram Vs. CIT [1962] 46 ITR 640 (SC). 8. The Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in case of Income Tax Officer v/s Dibya trading CO. LLP (ITA No 4330/MUM/2024 dated 02.01.2025) Submission of ld.DR : 5. Ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).Ld.DR submitted that Assessee had purchased mutual fund through JM Financial Asset Management Ltd., under the scheme…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 164/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 163/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 161/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 160/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra vs. Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd, Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 159/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 119/AGR/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 118/AGR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 116/AGR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 115/AGR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 114/AGR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Limited, Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 113/AGR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra25 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.113/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.114/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.115/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.116/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.117/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.118/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 7. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.119/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20) M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd. Acit-Central Circle बनाम/ 3/14-A, Jungpura-B Agra. Vs. New Delhi – 110 014. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccm-7102-J (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 8. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.157/Agr/2023 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) &

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Gupta (Adv.), Sh. SomilFor Respondent: Sh. Sukesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 37(1)

…ound that the notices issued u/s 133(6) to these suppliers remained un-responded. In such a case, no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee considering the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishinchand Chellaram vs. CIT (125 ITR 713) wherein it was held that the onus would be on revenue to prove its allegation. However, there is no corroborative evidences brought on record which support the conclusion of Ld. AO. Similarly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (281 CTR 0241) held that not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by ad…

Shree Balaji Lumbers Private Limited, Gandhidham vs. ACIT Circle, Gandhidham

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 306/RJT/2024[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot23 Apr 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: ShriChetan Agarwal, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68

…अपील"यअ"धकरण,राजकोट"यायपीठ,राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं/.ITA No.306/RJT/2024 "नधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shree Balaji Lumbers Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Circle Plot No.6-8, 25-25 Survey No.89 Gandhidham -370 201 VillagePadana Gandhidham – 370 201 PAN : AALCS 7866 C : (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : ShriChetan Agarwal, ld.AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr-DR सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27/01/2025 घोषणाक"तार"ख…

Ajay Bakliwal, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1279/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 154Section 270A

…onscious declaration of income and is binding unless proven otherwise. • If the appellant claims that the declaration of "3,87,72,404/- was a mistake, the onus lies on the appellant to provide credible evidence, as held in Kishinchand Chellaram v. CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)]. 2. Failure to Substantiate Hypothetical Income: • The appellant's claim that the declaration of 23,87,72,404/- was based on hypothetical income is unsupported by any documentary evidence or explanation. • Hypothetical or non-existent income cannot form the basis of a revised return, as reiterated in CIT v. Lovely Exports (P) Ltd. [(2008) 2…