Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496

8 SOT 691Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2006#4727 most cited

What is Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 authority for?

Statements made during a survey should not be used as the basis for an addition unless they are confronted to the partners of the assessee.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2021 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT · 8 SOT 691 · addition based on survey statement · statements not confronted · partners of assessee · ITAT Mumbai

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132(4A)Section 292CSection 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)arbitrary and capricioussection 181section 132(1)(a)section 114(e)section 158b(b)circle ratesection 158bb(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 158bdon-money

Judgments citing Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 5779/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…(Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee’s statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 38. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 39. So far as various decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are concerned, the same, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4), MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4448/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…) has held that the addition can be made\non the basis of assessee's statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant\nmaterial to substantiate the same.\n38. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs.\nDCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not\nconfronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the\nbasis for making addition.\n39. So far as various decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.\nCIT(A) are concerned, the same, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the\npresent case.…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , MUMBAI vs. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS, MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4445/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…(Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee’s statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 38. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 39. So far as various decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld. CIT(A) are concerned, the same, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 4 MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. MS. KALYANEE FORTUNE CONSTRUCTIONS , MUMBAI

In the result, all the above appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 4444/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: \nShri Neelkanth Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: \nMs. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)

…) has held that the addition can be made\non the basis of assessee's statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant\nmaterial to substantiate the same.\n38. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs.\nDCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not\nconfronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the\nbasis for making addition.\n39. So far as various decisions relied on by the Assessing Officer as well as the Ld.\nCIT(A) are concerned, the same, in our opinion, are not applicable to the facts of the\npresent case.…

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

…see to cross-examine. Therefore, the ratio relied upon by the assessee squarely applies and it is the prerogative of assessee whether it wants to cross-examine or not. It was held in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (MUM.) that even if the assessee was provided a copy of the statement recorded by the revenue on the spur of the moment, that should not be treated as an effective opportunity given to the assessee. In that case the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (A…

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

…see to cross-examine. Therefore, the ratio relied upon by the assessee squarely applies and it is the prerogative of assessee whether it wants to cross-examine or not. It was held in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (MUM.) that even if the assessee was provided a copy of the statement recorded by the revenue on the spur of the moment, that should not be treated as an effective opportunity given to the assessee. In that case the Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (A…

GANRAJ HOMES LLP ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

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

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…l: i) Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune) ii) DCIT vs. Kanakia Hospitality (P.) Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 4 (Mumbai – Trib.) 20. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), he submitted that the statements of employees which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 21. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that extrapolation has to be done on the basis of some cogent material found during the course of search action: i) CI…

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

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

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…l: i) Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune) ii) DCIT vs. Kanakia Hospitality (P.) Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 4 (Mumbai – Trib.) 20. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), he submitted that the statements of employees which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 21. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that extrapolation has to be done on the basis of some cogent material found during the course of search action: i) CI…

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 877/PUN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee's statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 39. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 40. However, at the same time it is also an admitted fact that certain booking forms were found containing two different figures in respect of flat Nos.A-102 and A-001, the details of which a…

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

ITA 876/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee's statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 39. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 40. However, at the same time it is also an admitted fact that certain booking forms were found containing two different figures in respect of flat Nos.A-102 and A-001, the details of which a…

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

ITA 875/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee’s statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 39. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 40. However, at the same time it is also an admitted fact that certain booking forms were found containing two different figures in respect of flat Nos.A-102 and A-001, the details of which…

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

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

ITA 874/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…l: i) Chander Mohan Mehta vs. ACIT (1999) 71 ITD 245 (Pune) ii) DCIT vs. Kanakia Hospitality (P.) Ltd. (2019) 110 taxmann.com 4 (Mumbai – Trib.) 20. Referring to the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), he submitted that the statements of employees which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 21. Referring to the following decisions, he submitted that extrapolation has to be done on the basis of some cogent material found during the course of search action: i) CI…

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

ITA 872/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kharnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…(Mad) has held that the addition can be made on the basis of assessee’s statement in survey only if it is supported by the relevant material to substantiate the same. 41. We find the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. Madhu Gupta vs. DCIT (2006) 8 SOT 691 (Mum), has held that the statements which are not confronted to any of the partners of the assessee should not be considered as the basis for making addition. 42. However, at the same time it is also an admitted fact that certain booking forms were found containing two different figures in respect of shop Nos.B-09, D- 04, D-05 and D-07, the detail…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner o…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner o…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner o…

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). 9.53 He submitted that in Sunrise Tooling Systems Pvt.Ltd v. ITO 2012 (11) TMI 1081 - ITAT Delhi, the Tribunal held as under: - Page 42 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore "The opportunity of cross-examining, Sh. Nitin Aggarwal, a partner o…

SHRI.B.H.BASHA,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1375/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri B.S Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Roumvan Paite, CIT(DR)
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.1375 to 1378/Bang/2016 Assessment year : 2008-09 to 2011-12 Shri B.H Basha, Vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income- Prop. M/s Bahar Films, tax, No.18, 13th Cross, Central Circle-1(4), Jayamahal Extension, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 046. PAN – AEBPB 0242 C APPELANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri B.S Balachandra, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Roumvan Paite, CIT(DR) Date of hearing : 01.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement : 28.10.2021 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari, Accou…

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 506/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

M/S. SRI DEVARAJ URS EDUCATIONAL TRUST FOR BACKWARD CLASSES (REGD),KOLAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

ITA 505/BANG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri Muzaffar Hussain, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 132Section 143(1)Section 153ASection 37

…to cross- examine. For the proposition that the right to cross-examine is not restricted only to those cases where the deponent / witness is a third party, reliance is placed on the decision of Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 - ITAT MUMBAI / [2006] 8 SOT 691 (Mum.) and Gargi Din Jwala Prasad v. CIT [1974] 96 ITR 97 (All). ITA Nos.500 TO 506/Bang/2020 Page 59 of 183 100. In the case of Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao (supra) almost the same proposition was accepted by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that while estimating the income from other materials, it is the duty…

Showing 1–20 of 25 · Page 1 of 2

Smt. Madhu Gupta v. DCIT 2006 (2) TMI 496 (8 SOT 691) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax