Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT

ITO -13(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishwa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Blei.T.O. – 13(3)(3) V. M/S. Viswa Vyapar Trading Pvt. Ltd., 607, 6Th Floor, Central Plaza Room No. 227, 2Nd Floor, Daftari Road, Shivaji Chowk Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Malad (E), Mumbai - 400 097 Mumbai-400 020 Pan: Aadcv 9568 L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

…f the proposition that cross-examination of the witness is must, before the AO relies on the on the statement of the witness for making addition. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of nathu Rain Prcmchand v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561, wherein the Hon'ble Court explained that it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of a witness. if his witness is material in exercise of his powers under order 16. Rule 10 of CPC and where the Officer does not do so, no inference can be drawn against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the jurisdict…

ACIT 30(3), Mumbai vs. Shreedham Builders, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2012-13 Acit-30(3), Shreedham Builders, R. No.510, 5Th Floor, 105/106, 1St Floor, बनाम/ Pratayakshkar Bhavan, Vijay Indl. Estate, Vs. Bandra Kurla Complex, Malad (W), Bandra (East), Mumbai-400064 Mumbai-400051 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No. Abdfs0133N

…f the proposition that cross-examination of the witness is must, before the AO relies on the on the statement of the witness for making addition. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of nathu Rain Prcmchand v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561, wherein the Hon'ble Court explained that it was the duty of the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of a witness. if his witness is material in exercise of his powers under order 16. Rule 10 of CPC and where the Officer does not do so, no inference can be drawn against the assessee. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the jurisdict…

Essa I Merchant, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

…rties and examined him. In our opinion, if the officer was of the opinion, that the evidence of parties, was necessary, it was his duty to have summoned them as has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561, more particularly in a case where onus on the appellant stands discharged. It is admitted position of fact as is undisputed that, in respect of nine parties, from whom leads were received by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and thereafter, successfully converted into orders, the appellant has duly shown the income and credited. It is not a ca…

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

…rties and examined him. In our opinion, if the officer was of the opinion, that the evidence of parties, was necessary, it was his duty to have summoned them as has been held by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 561, more particularly in a case where onus on the appellant stands discharged. It is admitted position of fact as is undisputed that, in respect of nine parties, from whom leads were received by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and thereafter, successfully converted into orders, the appellant has duly shown the income and credited. It is not a ca…

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

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

…Paradise Inland Shipping Private Ltd ITA No. 327/PNJ/2015 (vii) PCIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Private Ltd 84 taxman.com 58(Bombay), (viii) Anil C. Jain Vs ACIT ITA No. 369&370/M/2017, (ix) Maruti Impex Vs JCIT ITA 3823/M/2014, (x) Nathuram Premchand Vs CIT 49 ITR 561(All). 5. In the rejoinder arguments the learned DR for the revenue argued that the retraction of Praveen Kumar Jain was without supporting material. It was further argued that matter may be remanded back to the file of assessing officer for verification of the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and for cross examination of the parties.…

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

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

…Paradise Inland Shipping Private Ltd ITA No. 327/PNJ/2015 (vii) PCIT Vs Paradise Inland Shipping Private Ltd 84 taxman.com 58(Bombay), (viii) Anil C. Jain Vs ACIT ITA No. 369&370/M/2017, (ix) Maruti Impex Vs JCIT ITA 3823/M/2014, (x) Nathuram Premchand Vs CIT 49 ITR 561(All). 5. In the rejoinder arguments the learned DR for the revenue argued that the retraction of Praveen Kumar Jain was without supporting material. It was further argued that matter may be remanded back to the file of assessing officer for verification of the documentary evidences furnished by assessee and for cross examination of the parties.…