Unnikrisnan v. CIT (233 ITR 485)

TRIGAT LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,LUCKNOW vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -6, LUCKNOW

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

ITA 190/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 301, 3Rd Floor, Kusum Deep Income Tax-6, Lucknow New Complex Chowk, Lucknow, U.P. Pan:Aacct7404N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 30.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.08.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 On 27.02.2025, Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Orders Of The Ld. Dcit, Circle-6, Lucknow, Under Section 143(3) On 27.11.2018. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “1. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order, Which Is Unlawful, Unjustified & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order Without Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard. 3. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing The Order With Intangible Addition Of 50 Percent Sales Promotion Expenses Of Rs 7188348 On Estimated Basis. 4. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Passing Assessment Order Which Is Contrary To The Facts & Law.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

…spite of the fact that the reasonable and sufficient opportunity had been provided. He also 2 A.Y. 2016-17 Trigat Life Sciences Private Limited observed that the Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of C. Unnikrishnan vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (1998) 233 ITR 485 had observed, that where the material on record makes it clear that no attempt was made before the ld. AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be admitted. Furthermore, he pointed out that the Hon’ble ITAT Delhi in the case of Mrs. Jyotsna Suri vs. DCIT (1997) 61 ITD 139, had held an assessee…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), NEW DELHI, DELHI vs. ACORE CONSULTING PVT LTD, DLEHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1308/DEL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR

…ence sought to be filed by an assessee only for good reasons and after allowing the assessing officer reasonable opportunity to have his say in the matter is supported by some more judgments such as CIT v. Babulal Jain 176 ITR 411 (MP); C. Unnikrishnan v. CIT 233 ITR 485 (Ker); and Ramprasad Sharma v. CIT 119 ITR 867 (All). 12. In the case of Smt. Prabhavati Shah v. CIT 231 ITR 1 (Bom) Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court dealt with a case where the assessee sought to produce fresh evidence before the first appellate authority for no good reasons for not having produced the same before the assessing officer. Referr…

ITO, ANGUL WARD, , ANGUL vs. M/S. NCC SMASL JRT(JV),, ANGUL

ITA 99/CTK/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: Co. No.27/CTK/2018 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITRl) viii.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and non- compliance of same will r…

ITO, ANGUL WARD, ANGUL vs. NCC-SMASL-JRT(JV), ANGUL

ITA 39/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack25 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor and Bibhu Jain, AdvsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 40A(2)(b)

…refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: Co. No.27/CTK/2018 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITRl) viii.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and non- compliance of same will r…

MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 326/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Completion Of Assessment By Passing A Speaking Order.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 45

…the AO have gone unanswered. Further, the appellant has failed to upload his submission in support of the grounds raised. It necessary to mention here the decision given by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrishnan Vs CIT (1998) reported in 233 ITR 485 that Rule 46A provides certain conditions and situations under which an additional evidence can be filed before the CIT(A). Where the material on record makes it clear that no attempt was made before the AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence administered. It may not be out of place to mention here th…

LUMIS BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 7(1)(2) , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2128/MUM/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh ShahFor Respondent: ShriManoj Kumar Sinha (SR.DR.)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 35

…d), of Rule 46A: it is found that the appellant does not fulfil the said clauses and the circumstances mentioned therein. It necessary to mention here the decision given by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrishnan Vs CIT (1998) reported in 233 ITR 485 that Rule 46A provides certain conditions and situations under which an additional evidence can be filed before the CIT(A). Where the material on record makes it clear that no attempt was made before the AO or shows no regard to follow the requirement of Rule 46A, the additional evidence could not be administered. It may not be out of place to me…

DCIT,CORPORATE CIRC CLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED, BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 355/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…nce is placed on following decisions: P a g e 2 | 7 C.O.No.11/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will requi…

PARADEEP PHOSPHATES LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT,CORPORATE CIRCLE-1(2), BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the cross objection of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 327/CTK/2019[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack12 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2013-14 Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- Vs. Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate 3Rd 1(2), Floor, Aayakar Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. Bhavan, Bhubaneswar. J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) C.O.No.11/Ctk/2020 (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) (Arising Of Ita No.355/Ctk/2019) .327/Ctk/2019 Assessment Year : 2013-14 14 Paradeep Paradeep Phosphate Phosphate Vs. Dy. Cit, Dy. Cit, Corporate Circle- 3Rd Rd Limited, Limited, Bayan Bayan Bhawan, Bhawan, 1(2), Floor, Aayakar J.N.Marg, J.N.Marg, Kharvel Kharvel Nagar, Nagar, Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhavan, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar.. Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D Pan/Gir No.Aabcp 3276 D (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12 /10 10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10 10/2022 O R D E R Per Bench These Are Cross These Are Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Revenue & Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A) The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar Dated 19.8.2019 19.8.2019 In Appeal No.

For Appellant: S/Shri A.K.Sabat/B.K.Mahapatra, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 35A

…nce is placed on following decisions: P a g e 2 | 7 C.O.No.11/CTK/2020 Assessment Year : 2013-14 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) b.) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensable and noncompliance of same will requi…

DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR vs. M/S. THE ORISSA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LTD., BHUBANESWAR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 319/CTK/2017[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack20 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpia & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-4(1), Vs. The Orissa State Co The Orissa State Co-Op.Milk Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Producers Federation Ltd., Producers Federation Ltd., D-2, 2, Sahid Sahid Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aabtt 3220 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ca B.K.Mahapatra, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit M.K.Gautam, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 21 /9 9/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/9 9/2022 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 2, Bhubaneswar Dated 31.5.2017 In Appeal No In Appeal No.0251/2015-16 For The Assessment Year For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri Shri M.K.Gautam, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue & Shri B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee. B.K.Mahapatra, Ld Ar Appeared For The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, CAFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, CIT

Section 43B

…o the AO to verify/refute such evidences. In this regard, reliance is placed on following decisions: 1) Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury (288 ITR 179). 2) Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of C. Unnikrisnan vs. CIT (233 ITR 485) P a g e 2 | 13 Assessment Year : 2009-10 3) Hon'ble Mumbai High Court in the case of Prabhavati S. Shah vs. CIT (231 ITR 1) Therefore in the present case, there has been gross violation of principles of Natural Justice as the Id. CIT(A) has not allowed any opportunity to the AO to verify such evidences. Rule-46A(3) is mandatory and indispensab…

ACIT, ROURKELA CIRCLE, ROURKELA vs. PAWANJAY SPONGE IRON LTD., ROURKELA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 404/CTK/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack21 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: S/ S/Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicial & Manish Borad & Manish Borad & Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y Pawanjay Sponge Iron Ltd., Y- Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. Tax, Rourkela Circle, Rourkela. 20, Civil Township, 7 20, Civil Township, 7-8, Area, Rourkela Pan/Gir No. No.Addpr 7405 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.C.Bhadra S.C.Bhadra , Ar Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27/10/ 20 / 2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 21 / /1/2022 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri S.C.BhadraFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam

Section 68

…essee violating the terms of Rules 46A of the I.T.Rules, 1962 in not granting an opportunity to the AO to rebut the case. Ld CIT DR relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) CIT vs Ranjt Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179 (Gau) ii) C. Unnikrisnan vs CIT, 233 ITR 485 (Ker) iii) Prabhavati S Shah vs CIT, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) iv) CIT vs Shree Kangra Steel Pvt Ltd., 320 ITR 691(hp) v) CIT vs Subbu Shashank, 327 ITR 577 (Mad) vi) CIT vs United Towers Pvt Ltd., 296 ITR 106(Del)] vii) Manish Build Well PvtLtd., 16 taxmann.com 27 (Del) Further, ld CIT DR relied on the order of the ITAT Chandigarh in the case of DCIT vs…

BUNTS INDUSTRIES P. LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT 10(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3164/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Bunts Industries Pvt. Ltd., Acit, बनाम/ 210 Anandraj Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, V. Estate, M.K. Road, Lbs Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. Bhandup, Mumbai – 400 078. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaccb5692C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sumen Kumar, D.R

Section 143(3)(ii)Section 250(6)Section 271

…dआयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “B” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3164/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Bunts Industries Pvt. Ltd., ACIT, बनाम/ 210 Anandraj Industrial Aayakar Bhawan, v. Estate, M.K. Road, LBS Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. Bhandup, Mumbai – 400 078. "थायी लेखा सं./PAN : AACCB5692C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee by Shri Bhadresh Doshi Revenue by : Shri Sumen Kumar, D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख /Date of Hearing : 06-04-2017 घोषणा…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. TULIP STAR HOTELS LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4908/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh, Jm & Sh. O.P.Kant, Am Ita No.4908/Del./2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Acit Vs Tulip Star Hotels Ltd., Circle-16(1) Indra Palace, New Delhi H-Block, Connaught Circle New Delhi Aaacc1072F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. J.P.Chandrekar, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Sh. Shashwat Bajpai, Adv

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…important does not provide a substantial cause to allow its admission at appellate stage especially when evidence was available to party at initial stage and had not been produced by him. 7.2 In the case of C. Unnikrishnan v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1998] 233 ITR 485 (KER.) the High Court of Kerala observed that there was no evidence that any attempt was made by assessee to produce additional before Assessing Officer or appellate authority. Page 11 of 14 ITA No.4908/Del./2011 Even order of first appellate authority was wholly silent in regard thereto. Further, contention raised before Tribunal showed no rega…

Unnikrisnan v. CIT

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Unnikrisnan v. CIT