State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf

39 STC 478Supreme Court of India1977#3635 most cited

What is State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf authority for?

The assessee has a right to cross-examine persons whose statements are used against them in assessment proceedings, and the department has a duty to provide copies of such statements or reports.

33

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf · section 132 · right to cross-examination · statements used in assessment · department duty · assessee rights · natural justice · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69CSection 132Section 132(4)Section 147

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationthird party informationsection 153(c)onus of proofsection 164retraction of statementsection 31

Judgments citing State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf

PEDA SUBBA RAO UNNAM,ADDANKI vs. ITO , WARD-1, ONGOLE

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

ITA 1664/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(a)Section 69A

…changing dates without addressing appellant circumstances. No draft order was provided. Argument: While the department issued notices providing an opportunity is not merely procedural it must be meaningful. Case Law: State of Kerala vs KT Shaduli Yusuff 1977 39 STC 478 SC CIT vs JK Synthetics Ltd 2007 295 ITR 0567 SC. 5 Peda Subba Rao 7. Addition of interest income without considering medical condition & old age. Objection: The addition of Rs.31,807 for interest income was not intentional concealment but bona fide omission due to appellant medical condition and age related oversight. Argument: This is a fit ca…

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2208/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…the Kerala High Court in the case of P.S. Abdul Majid vs. Agricultural Income Tax in 209 ITR 821. The Kerala High Court, while enunciating the principle, followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff in 39 STC 478. (vi) In the case of Kishinchand Chelaram vs. CIT in 125 ITR 713, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to consider the evidences which were recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine was given to the assessee. (vii) In the case of Andeman Timber Industry vs. CCE in 281 CTR 241 (SC), the Hon’ble Sppreme Court delet…

M/S LS CONTRACTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 30, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly

ITA 2207/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.2207 & 2208/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Years:2019-20 & 2020-21 बनाम M/S Ls Contractors Dcit, Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-30, H-12, Tropical Building, E-2, Ground Floor, Connaught Place, New Delhi. Ara Centre, Pan No.Aabcl8541R Jhandewalan Extension Karol Bagh, New Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 153CSection 234ASection 270A

…the Kerala High Court in the case of P.S. Abdul Majid vs. Agricultural Income Tax in 209 ITR 821. The Kerala High Court, while enunciating the principle, followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff in 39 STC 478. (vi) In the case of Kishinchand Chelaram vs. CIT in 125 ITR 713, the Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to consider the evidences which were recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross-examine was given to the assessee. (vii) In the case of Andeman Timber Industry vs. CCE in 281 CTR 241 (SC), the Hon’ble Sppreme Court delet…

ANKIT AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 304/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019
For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…upreme Court laid down\nthat admission is to be proved in accordance with the provisions of\nEvidence Act and due opportunity must be given for explanation, cross-\nexamination and verification of documents\n4.3 In State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, the\nSupreme Court held that not only it is the duty of the Department to\nprovide copies of statements or reports, but the assessee is entitled to\nseek right of cross-examination.\n4.4 The Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125\nITR 713 (SC) held that evidence which is used against the assessee must\nbe provided to the assess…

KIRAN DEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 303/HYD/2025[2020-2021]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2020-2021
For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…upreme Court laid down\nthat admission is to be proved in accordance with the provisions of\nEvidence Act and due opportunity must be given for explanation, cross-\nexamination and verification of documents\n4.3 In State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, the\nSupreme Court held that not only it is the duty of the Department to\nprovide copies of statements or reports, but the assessee is entitled to\nseek right of cross-examination.\n4.4 The Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125\nITR 713 (SC) held that evidence which is used against the assessee must\nbe provided to the assess…

KIRAN DEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 302/HYD/2025[2019-2020]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2019-2020
For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…preme Court laid down\nthat admission is to be proved in accordance with the provisions of\nEvidence Act and due opportunity must be given for explanation, cross-\nexamination and verification of documents\n4.3\nIn State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, the\nSupreme Court held that not only it is the duty of the Department to\nprovide copies of statements or reports, but the assessee is entitled to\nseek right of cross-examination.\n4.4\nThe Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125\nITR 713 (SC) held that evidence which is used against the assessee must\nbe provided to the asses…

KIRAN DEVI AGARWAL,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(3), HYDERABAD

In the result, all the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 301/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad14 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019
For Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh, SR-DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…preme Court laid down\nthat admission is to be proved in accordance with the provisions of\nEvidence Act and due opportunity must be given for explanation, cross-\nexamination and verification of documents\n4.3\nIn State of Kerala v. K T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, the\nSupreme Court held that not only it is the duty of the Department to\nprovide copies of statements or reports, but the assessee is entitled to\nseek right of cross-examination.\n4.4\nThe Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125\nITR 713 (SC) held that evidence which is used against the assessee must\nbe provided to the asses…

RISHI AGARWAL,GUWAHATI vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI

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

ITA 266/GTY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manomohan Das & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69C

…are at best merely corroborative evidences." ii) In Commissioner of Sales Tax v. Moti Oil Mills, 1980 UPTC 557 relying upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala v. K.T. Shadulli and Nalla Kandy Yusuf, 1977 UPTC 363/ (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC) has held that where the entries are detected in the account books of other dealer are being relied upon against the assessee, the burden is on the Department to prove the authenticity of such entries and for that to produce that dealer for cross-examination and if the Department fails to do so no adverse inference can be drawn against the ass…

DCIT, CIRCLE -6, JAIPUR, NCRB, JAIPUR vs. ASCENT BUILDHOME DEVELOPERS LIMITED, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 846/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jan 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Jitendra Wadhwa, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…cial element of justice.\"Whenever\nnew evidence is introduced, affected parties should be granted the right to\nrespond. The AO's exclusion from reviewing the additional evidence violated this\nfundamental right.\niv. State of Kerala VS. K.T. Shaduli [(1977) 39 STC 478 (SC)]:\nThis ruling emphasized that \"no evidence should be taken behind the back of any\nparty.\" The AO was deprived of the opportunity to review the additional evidence,\nviolating the requirement for procedural transparency.\nv. Smt. Kamla Devi VS. ITO (82 Taxman 144) (ITAT Delhi):\nIt was held that the CIT(A) must confront the AO with any add…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…he basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 8…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…he basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 8…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…he basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 8…

ANIL CHAUDHARY,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…he basis of the materials which have been placed on record, we are of the considered opinion that no case is made out to direct investigation against any of the persons named in the Birla's documents or in the documents A-8, A-9 and A- 10 etc. of Sahara.” ii) 39 STC 478. (SC) State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (Three Judge’s Bench) iii) 294 ITR 49 (SC) CIT vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram affirming the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court reported in 282 ITR 259 iv) 97 ITR 696 (Bom) Addl. CIT vs. Miss Lata Mangeshkar v) 163 ITR 249 (Guj) CIT vs. M.K. Brothers vi) 300 ITR 426 (All.) CIT vs. Salek Chand vii) 209 ITR 8…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 435/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…s-examine the person whose statement\nhad been used by revenue against his interests and thereby\nprinciples of natural justice had been violated.\n3.10.11 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions:\n•\nState of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [(1977) 39 STC 478\nSC)]\n•\nMehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)]\n•\nVasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST\n•\n[(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)]\nCIT v. Ashish International [ITA No. 4299 of 2009, Order\nDated 22.02.201, Bombay High court]\n3.11 ADDITION MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT IS INVALID:\n3.11.1 As evident from the assessment order the entire addition\nis dependent…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

ITA 434/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…cross-examine the person whose statement had been used by revenue against his interests and thereby principles of natural justice had been violated. 3.10.11 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] • Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] • Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST • [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] CIT v. Ashish International [ITA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3.11 ADDITION MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT IS INVALID: 3.11.1 As evident from the assessment order the entire addition is dependent on the state…

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…cross-examine the person whose statement had been used by revenue against his interests and thereby principles of natural justice had been violated. 3.10.11 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] • Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] • Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST — [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] • CIT v. Ashish International [ITA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3.11 ADDITION MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT IS INVALID: 3.11.1 As evident from the assessment order the entire addition is dependent on the st…

DEEPAK VALJI KARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…is not permissible to draw any inference based upon such material. Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE — [(2015) 127 DTR 241 (SC)] (ii). State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff[(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] (iii). Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] (iv). Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST — [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] (v). CIT v. Ashish International [ITXA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3. The assessment order is framed purely on the basis of (i) suspicion, surmises and conjectures (ii) relying upon extraneous…

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR vs. SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…e Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC), CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 191 Taxman 51 (Delhi), CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345 (Delhi) and State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC). Similarly, inspite of specific request, ld. AO did not examine the persons who, according to the ld. AO, had received loans from the assessee through Ramesh Manihar Group. 64. It was submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR 204(Bom.) (HC) held that if the entries on loose sheet of p…

SHRI PRAKASH CHAND KOTHARI,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…e Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in case of Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE(2015) 281 CTR 0241 (SC), CIT v. Ashwani Gupta [2010] 191 Taxman 51 (Delhi), CIT v. SMC Share Brokers Ltd. [2007] 288 ITR 345 (Delhi) and State of Kerala v. K.T. Shaduli Yusuff (1977) 39 STC 478 (SC). Similarly, inspite of specific request, ld. AO did not examine the persons who, according to the ld. AO, had received loans from the assessee through Ramesh Manihar Group. 64. It was submitted that Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Lavanya Land (P) Ltd. (2017) 297 CTR 204(Bom.) (HC) held that if the entries on loose sheet of p…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 , PHAGWARA vs. SH. SUCHA SINGH, PHILLAUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 702/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrilaliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 10(37)Section 143(2)Section 54B

…s or documents or statement of third party is relied upon for making an addition, it is the duty of the Department to allow the assessee not only to examine such documents but also to cross- examine the party. In State of Kerala vs. K.T. Shaduli Yusuf (1977) 39 STC 478, the Supreme Court held that not only it is the duty of the Department to provide copies of statements or reports butthe assessee is entitled to seek right ' of cross- examination. The Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaramv, CIT (1980) 125 HR 713 (S.C.) held that evidence which is used against the assessee must be provided to the assessee and al…

Showing 1–20 of 33 · Page 1 of 2