← All Phrases

“investigation wing”

ReassessmentSection 147Section 14712,584 judgments

The decision most relied on for investigation wing is PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd. (396 ITR 5), cited in 272 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on investigation wing

PCIT v. RMG Polyvinyl (I) Ltd.
396 ITR 5 · 2017 · High Court
272
citing judgments

Reassessment based solely on information from the Investigation Wing, without the Assessing Officer conducting further inquiry or demonstrating an independent application of mind, is unjustified and invalid.

109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT
293 ITR 43 · 2007 · High Court
264
citing judgments

Where an assessment order is merely a copy-paste of observations from an investigation wing's appraisal report without independent verification, it is not a valid basis for making additions to income.

Sarthak Securities Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
329 ITR 110 · 2010 · High Court
217
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under Section 147 are invalid if the Assessing Officer records satisfaction based on borrowed satisfaction or information without independently applying their mind and forming their own 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment. The AO must arrive at an independent conclusion, not merely act on a report from an investigation wing without due diligence.

ITO, 19(3) (4) Mumbai v. Shamim M Bharwani
69 Taxmann.com 65 · 2016 · Reported
142
citing judgments

Long Term Capital Gains (LTCG) from penny stock transactions are liable to be treated as bogus and added back under Section 68 as unexplained cash credits, especially when evidence suggests the involvement of entry operators providing accommodation entries.

1. Harikishan S. Virmani v. DCIT
394 ITR 146 · 2017 · High Court
97
citing judgments

Reassessment proceedings under section 147 cannot be initiated by the Assessing Officer based on borrowed satisfaction, vague information from the Investigation Wing, or incorrect jurisdictional facts without independent application of mind. Reopening beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, especially where an original assessment was completed under section 143(3), requires specific conditions relating to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts.

ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur
224 ITR 362 · 1997 · Supreme Court
90
citing judgments

Information received from the investigation wing constitutes valid 'reason to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Sections 147/148, provided the Assessing Officer applies their mind to the material and does not act mechanically. Prompt issuance of a notice based on such information does not automatically imply a lack of due diligence or borrowed satisfaction.

AGR Investment v. Additional Commissioner
197 Taxmann 177 · 2011 · High Court
81
citing judgments

A reassessment under Section 147/148 is valid if initiated based on specific, non-vague information, even from an investigation wing, provided the Assessing Officer applies independent mind to form a 'reason to believe' that income has escaped assessment.

56 (Guj.) (para 6) v. Aaspas Multimedia Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
83 Taxmann.com 82 · 2017 · High Court
78
citing judgments

Information received from the Investigation Wing, identifying the assessee as a beneficiary of accommodation entries through share application from a third party, constitutes valid tangible material and 'reasons to believe' for initiating reassessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.

Judgments citing investigation wing

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

Shri. Uday Shankar Mahawar, who was involved in the share layering and had already admitted vide his sworn statements dated 22.08.2014 & 25.08.2014, before Investigation wing, Kolkata that he was indulging in bogus billing, bogus commission fee and bogus share application accommodation entries, bogus purchase and sale of unquoted shares ... finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action as against the fact that material was unearthed by the investigation wing during the course of search operations which was seized. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on various judicial decisions to support the fact that even

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 159/CHNY/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

Shri. Uday Shankar Mahawar, who was involved in the share layering and had already admitted vide his sworn statements dated 22.08.2014 & 25.08.2014, before Investigation wing, Kolkata that he was indulging in bogus billing, bogus commission fee and bogus share application accommodation entries, bogus purchase and sale of unquoted shares ... finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action as against the fact that material was unearthed by the investigation wing during the course of search operations which was seized. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on various judicial decisions to support the fact that even

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 158/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

Shri. Uday Shankar Mahawar, who was involved in the share layering and had already admitted vide his sworn statements dated 22.08.2014 & 25.08.2014, before Investigation wing, Kolkata that he was indulging in bogus billing, bogus commission fee and bogus share application accommodation entries, bogus purchase and sale of unquoted shares ... finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action as against the fact that material was unearthed by the investigation wing during the course of search operations which was seized. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on various judicial decisions to support the fact that even

DCIT, Central Cir-2(3), Chennai vs. Rkkr Holdings P Ltd, Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 157/CHNY/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 143(3)

Shri. Uday Shankar Mahawar, who was involved in the share layering and had already admitted vide his sworn statements dated 22.08.2014 & 25.08.2014, before Investigation wing, Kolkata that he was indulging in bogus billing, bogus commission fee and bogus share application accommodation entries, bogus purchase and sale of unquoted shares ... finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search action as against the fact that material was unearthed by the investigation wing during the course of search operations which was seized. The Ld. CIT-DR relied on various judicial decisions to support the fact that even

Shantananda Steels Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Chennai

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

ITA 1173/CHNY/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bashyam, CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 68

year 2012-13, out of the alleged claim of sale proceeds of its share investments. The AO after considering the enquiry conducted by the investigation wing and that these investments are out of sale proceeds of alleged share from shell companies of Kolkata, providing accommodation entries on ITA Nos.1173/Chny/2019 commission

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2965/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

assessment in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing after search on Bhanwarlal Jain group. As per the information, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the said group. A perusal of the assessment order passed under

Gold Star Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 5, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2964/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Nishant Thakker &For Respondent: Hemant Kumar Chimanlal
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263Section 40(3)

assessment in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 was reopened on the basis of information received by Investigation Wing after search on Bhanwarlal Jain group. As per the information, the assessee has obtained accommodation entries from the said group. A perusal of the assessment order passed under

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 593/KOL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

further pleaded that the reopening in this case was made on the basis of confessional statement of one Shri Rajendra Jain made before Investigation Wing, Mumbai, however, the said statement was retracted by said Shri Rajendra jain by way of an affidavit and, therefore, no I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 592/KOL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

further pleaded that the reopening in this case was made on the basis of confessional statement of one Shri Rajendra Jain made before Investigation Wing, Mumbai, however, the said statement was retracted by said Shri Rajendra jain by way of an affidavit and, therefore, no I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment

DCIT, Cir. -7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Shree Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 591/KOL/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Nov 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata.................................................................……Appellant Vs. M/S Shreejee Jewellers Pvt. Ltd..…...................……........……...…..…..Respondent 103, Park Street, Kolkata-700016. [Pan: Aaecs8312C] Appearances By: Shri Rajeeva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 11, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 24, 2022 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Captioned Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders All Dated 23.06.2021 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). Since, The Appeals Pertained To The Same Assessee & Common Issues Are Involved & Hence, All These Appeals Have Been Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order. The Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.591/Kol/2021 For Assessment Year 2007-08 Is Taken As The Lead Case. 2. Ita No.591/Kol/2021 - The Revenue In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 69C

further pleaded that the reopening in this case was made on the basis of confessional statement of one Shri Rajendra Jain made before Investigation Wing, Mumbai, however, the said statement was retracted by said Shri Rajendra jain by way of an affidavit and, therefore, no I.T.A Nos.591,592&593/Kol/2021 Assessment

Aadi Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle CIT -14, Mumbai

In the result, we set aside the order of the CIT dated

ITA 1675/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Aadi Industries Limited V. Pr.Cit – 14 421, 4Th Floor Room No. 426, 4Th Floor Kailash Plaza, Vallabh Baug Lane Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai - 400020 Near R-Odeon Mall, Ghatkopar(E) Mumbai - 400075 Pan: Aaacj8256G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Mandar Vaidya Department Represented By : Shri Jagadish Jangid

Section 143(3)Section 263

Officer has duly verified the submissions made by the assessee that assessee has only sold the goods and not purchased as alleged by the investigation wing that it has provided accommodation entries and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer and taken one of the possible views. Further

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5475/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein held that all the said purchases were verified and genuine on the basis of enquiry report of investigation Wing, New Delhi and made disallowance of Rs. 108,34,15,088/- being cash purchases out of total purchases ... clear that the AO did not impugn the genuineness of the transactions. iii) The identities of all the suppliers were established facts as the Investigation Wing had already examined them to ascertain their genuineness and creditworthiness. iv) The competitive environment in the milk industries was also overlooked

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Nagar Dairy Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 5474/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Respondent: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case
Section 153CSection 2(22)(e)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)

Income Tax Act, 1961 wherein held that all the said purchases were verified and genuine on the basis of enquiry report of investigation Wing, New Delhi and made disallowance of Rs. 108,34,15,088/- being cash purchases out of total purchases ... clear that the AO did not impugn the genuineness of the transactions. iii) The identities of all the suppliers were established facts as the Investigation Wing had already examined them to ascertain their genuineness and creditworthiness. iv) The competitive environment in the milk industries was also overlooked

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax -12 vs. Karuna Garg

ITA/477/2022HC Delhi23 Nov 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 68

Section 10(38), in a pre-planned manner to evade taxes. The AO extensively relied upon the search and survey operations conducted by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department in Kolkata, Delhi, Mumbai and Ahmedabad on penny stocks, which sets out the modus operandi adopted in the business ... JASWANT SINGH RAWAT Signing Date:25.11.2022 20:24:46 Signature Not Verified Neutral Citation Number: 2022/DHC/005158 ITA 477/2022 Page 4 of 4 the Investigation Wing. Lastly, reliance placed by the Revenue on Suman Poddar v. ITO (supra) and Sumati Dayal v. CIT (supra) is of no assistance. Upon examining

Harsh Keyal, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-8(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 681/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

based his decision of treating the impugned transaction of sale of shares as bogus transaction by relying on the report of Investigation Wing of the Department wherein the Investigation Wing of the Department had studied the modus operandi of rigging the prices of penny stocks and generation of capital

Dy.Comm of Income Tax Central Circle 5(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Ltd, Mumbai

In the result of the Revenue Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1722/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1722/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dy. Comm Of Income M/S. Arch Pharmalabs Tax Central Circle Ltd Mumbai 5(1) Mumbai 3Rdfloor, Titanic Bldg, बिधम/ Room No.1928, Chandivali Farm Road, Vs. 19Th Floor, Air India Bldg. Malegaon, Nariman Point, Mumbai Maharashtra 400072 Maharashtra,400021 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No Aaccm0306Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ : Shri Madhur Agarwal Appellant By प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent : Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.Ar. By सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 20.10.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 23.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. Manoj Sinha, Sr.AR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

quashing the assessment order u/s.147 by holding that the reopening of assessment proceedings were merely on the basis of information provided by the investigation wing without appreciating that there is nexus between the information available on record and the reasons to believe and the reasons recorded in as much ... discussed this issue in the following manner:- The facts as discussed above narrates that the information was received by the AO from the Investigation Wing that the appellant company was engaged in trading in penny stock with the intention of claiming non-genuine LTCG/STCG. The appellant has taken the entry

M/S. Nikunj Exim Enterpris Pvt. Ltdes, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cent Cir 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1822/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Nov 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman,Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1822/Mum/2021 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19)

For Respondent: Shri Samual Pitta, Ld. DR
Section 115BSection 153ASection 69

held to be bogus. 16. Ld. DR submitted before us that Ld. AO has analyzed each and every party based on conclusion drawn by Investigation Wing during the course of search in the case of Nickunj Group. The details which were filed by the assessee have been found lacking which

Ss Pulses Manufacturing Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 9388/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Ashwini Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr.DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250(6)

reopening assessment where AO has not made any enquiry from the relevant parties or independent source and he merely relied upon the report of investigation wing. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both in law and on facts in his order u/s.250(6) in upholding the addition made ... under: “1. Without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal, the Ld. AO has failed to apply his mind w.r.t information received from Investigation Wing and hence the information received could not be said to be tangible material per se without a further enquiry being undertaken by the ld. Assessing

Ashari Agencies Ltd, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7958/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 147

confronted by the revenue to the assessee. The modus operandi has been unearthed during the Survey u/s 133A of the Act conducted by the Investigation Wing, Ahmadabad. These observations when seen in totality and by following the principle of preponderance of probability corroborate the inference of the AO that

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Cir.-2, Surat vs. Shri Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue (in ITA nos

ITA 195/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Nov 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.110/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Physical Court Hearing) Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-2, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.195/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2017-18) The Dcit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Jayantibhai Virjibhai Babariya, K-801, River View Heights, Surat. Peddar Road, Mota Varachha, Surat-394101 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afhpb0820M (Assessee) (Respondent) Shri Ashwin K. Parekh, Ar Assessee By Respondent By Shri Ritesh Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2022

Section 143(3)

note that ld Counsel also contended that cross-examination of Shri Manoj C. Patel and Shri Jayantibhai Babariya whose statements were recorded by the Investigation Wing and also by the Assessing Officer, was requested from the Assessing Officer. However, the same has been denied by the Assessing Officer stating that