Shyamlal Biri Merchant v. UOI

68 ELT 548Reported decision1993#6705 most cited

What is Shyamlal Biri Merchant v. UOI authority for?

An assessee's entitlement to cross-examination depends on the facts and circumstances of the case. This entitlement may not be warranted if specific circumstances exist, such as the assessee being identified as a beneficiary of accommodation entries based on collected information.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Shyamlal Biri Merchant v. UOI · cross-examination · facts and circumstances · beneficiary of accommodation entries · search proceedings · section 131 · section 148A · onus of proof · natural justice

Sections most often in play

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 1961Section 133(6)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

bogus share capitalonus of proofshell companytax benefitborrowed satisfactionsection 69bentry operatorprincipal commissioner of income-taxsection 69con-moneypenny stockaccommodation entry

Judgments citing Shyamlal Biri Merchant v. UOI

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6525/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Respondent: Mr. Bharat Kumar
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…oncerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s Bait-Al-Tamur Co., the name and PAN of the assessee (ACM- Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of unaccounted purchase of Rs.13,81,350/- from M/s Bait-Al- Tamur Co. during…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6524/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…oncerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s Bait-Al-Tamur Co., the name and PAN of the assessee (ACM- Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of unaccounted purchase of Rs.13,81,350/- from M/s Bait-Al- Tamur Co. during…

Bharat Solanki, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Mumbai

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

ITA 6523/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail ()

For Appellant: Mr. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Mr. Solgy Jose T. Kottaram, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153CSection 69Section 69C

…oncerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case, no such circumstances are warranted as in the documents collected during the search and survey proceedings in the case of M/s Bait-Al-Tamur Co., the name and PAN of the assessee (ACM- Ashok Chimanlal Mehta) was clearly mentioned in respect of unaccounted purchase of Rs.13,81,350/- from M/s Bait-Al- Tamur Co. during…

Jajoo Rashmi Refractories Limited, Jaipur, Rajasthan vs. DCIT, Circle 4-Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 209/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 131Section 145Section 147Section 69C

…ame cannot complete. There is various case laws in this regard on which the ld. AO relied. i. ii. iii. iv. V. Nath International Sales vs. UOI, AIR 1992 (Del) 295). State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwarlal Mali vs. CIT 256 ITR 536(Raj.) CIT v. Metal Products of India (1984) 150 ITR 714 (P&H), 5. (Kindly see Ld. AO order page no. 6 second last para) a. It is necessary to mention here that the assessee can't take the plea that the correspondence sales are there. In this regard, re…

Hansa Jitendra Haria, Jamnagar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Jun 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.104/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Hansa Jitendra Haria Vs. Principal Commissioner Of 2, Oswal Colony, Near Rajendra Income Tax Balkrindagan, Jamnagar, Gujarat Jamnagar 361005. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahph4309L (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 263Section 69A

…. ITA No. 104/RJT/2024/AY.2013-14 Hansa Jitendra Haria vs. PCIT i. The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. ShyamlalBiri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the list of beneficiaries to whom the unaccounted money was routed into their account/books in the garb of Long Term Capital Gain were provided by the said group categorically contains the name and address of the assessee, further the group has categorically admitted that the…

Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1428/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 May 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 11Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA श्री संजय शमाा, न्याधयक सदस्य एवं श्री राकेश धमश्रा, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष Before SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 1428/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2011 -12 Laxmidhan Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kolkata Vs. (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AABCL7682F Appearances: Assessee represented by : None. Department represented by : Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : February 25th, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : May…

Astt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana, Aayakar Bhawan vs. Waryam Steel Casting Private Limited, Kanganwal Road

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 757/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

…erned . In State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchantvs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.). In the case of assessee, no such circumstances are warranted as during the course of investigation proceedings in the case of Mr. Rahul Pratap Singh, PAN- DDMPS9057P (claimed by assessee as Prop. Gauri Shankar Trading Co.) as mentioned in the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, it was found that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of acco…

Waryam Steel Castings Private Limited, Ludhiana vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Cross appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 715/CHANDI/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, C.A and Ms. Muskan Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Parkash Kalia, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 148Section 250

…erned . In State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchantvs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All.). In the case of assessee, no such circumstances are warranted as during the course of investigation proceedings in the case of Mr. Rahul Pratap Singh, PAN- DDMPS9057P (claimed by assessee as Prop. Gauri Shankar Trading Co.) as mentioned in the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act, it was found that the assessee is one of the beneficiary of acco…

Shri Salasar Balaji Developers Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1186/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Appellant: Mr. Saurav Harsh, Adv., Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Kumar, JCIT, Ld. DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…tute concerned. (State of J&K Vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad, AIR 1967 SC 122). The question whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depend on the facts and circumstances of the case (Shyamlal biri Merchant Vs UOI 1993 68 ELT 548, Allahabad). 4.4 The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rameshwar Lal Mali V/s CIT 256 ITR 536 (Raj.) has held that "There is no provision for permitting the cross examination of the persons whose statement were recorded during survey." 4.5 In the case of Mahendra N. Chatterjee V/s Collector of Central Excise (1977) Tax LR 1754 (Cal.) t…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1470/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1469/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 1470/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sun Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Ward-24(1), Triveni Apartment, A-94, Shop No. 1, New Delhi-110002 Swayam Sewa Group, Housing Society, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110095 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANCS5532K Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 02.07.202…

ITO, Ward-24(1), New Delhi vs. Sun Intrastate Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1469/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA No. 1469/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 ITA No. 1470/Del/2023 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sun Infraestate Pvt. Ltd., Ward-24(1), Triveni Apartment, A-94, Shop No. 1, New Delhi-110002 Swayam Sewa Group, Housing Society, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi-110095 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AANCS5532K Assessee by : Sh. Gautam Jain, Adv. & Sh. Lalit Mohan, CA Revenue by : Ms. Deepti Chandola, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 18.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 02.07.202…

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle, 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1618/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

…mination is a question which may large a question which may largely depends on the facts and ly depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) . UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries were provided list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries we…

Purna Purshottam Exports, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 32(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for assessment year

ITA 1616/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Purna Pushottam Exports, Ito-32(3)(5), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2018-19 Purna Pushottam Exports, Acit Central Circle, 2(2), Gala No. 329, Vardhman Mumbai. Vs. Industrial Estate, Behind Petrol Pump, S.V. Road, Dahisar East, Mumbai-400068. Pan No. Aaefp 8085 E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. K. Gopal, Adv. &For Respondent: Mr. H.M. Bhatt, DR
Section 148

…mination is a question which may large a question which may largely depends on the facts and ly depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs circumstances of the case (ef. Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) . UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551(All 68 ELT 548, 551(All.) In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries were provided list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries we…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Income Tax Office vs. Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 55/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Income Tax Department, Central Circle-3 vs. M/S N. M. Agrofood Products Pvt. Ltd., Sriganganagar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 54/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT lquo
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 54/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Deputy Commissioner of Income M/s N. M. Agrofood Products Tax Vs. Pvt. Ltd. 34, 35, 36, 1st Phase Udhyog Income Tax Department, Vihar, RIICO, Sri Ganganagar Central Circle-3 LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCN 3552 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent izR;k{ksi.k…

M/S P. R. Rolling Mills P. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: The Itat By Taking Following

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT-DR)
Section 35Section 35(1)Section 35(1)(ii)

…e concerned (State of J&K vs. Bakshi Gulam Mohammad AIR 1967 SC 122). The question, whether the assessee is entitled to cross examination is a question which may largely depends on the facts and circumstances of the case (Shyamlal Biri Merchant vs. UOI (1993) 68 ELT 548, 551 (All.) In the present case no such circumstances are warranted as in the list of beneficiaries to whom accommodation entries were provided by the M/s SHG & GH contains the name of the appellant and the name of the broker who arranged such bogus transaction and the categorical admittance of the authorized signatories of M/s SHG & GH, as discus…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Shri Prateek Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 552/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon’Ble High Court.”

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (CA)For Respondent: Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 132(4)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 552/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Dy. Commissioner of Shri Prateek Kothari Vs. H-12, Sukh Jeevan, Jacob Income-tax, Road, Circle-2, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.: ABIPK8090R vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Prithviraj Meena (Addl. CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vijay…

Shyamlal Biri Merchant v. UOI (68 ELT 548) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax