103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin v. ITO

52 SOT 62Income Tax Appellate Tribunal#9832 most cited

What is 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin v. ITO authority for?

A statement made under section 132(4) is not conclusive and can be retracted if shown to be made under a mistaken belief of fact or law.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Uttamchand P. Jaiin v. ITO · 103 ITD 1 (Mum) · section 132(4) · statement under search · retraction of statement · mistaken belief · evidentiary value · onus of proof · search and seizure

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 292CSection 69

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 100section 153(c)(1)section 94abatement of assessmentanonymous donationsection 153(c)section 164section 38third party informationonus of proofincome tax settlement commission

Judgments citing 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin v. ITO

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rama Shankar Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1005/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE i) Civil Appeal No.. 9346 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Third Floor vs. Rajesh Rani Khemka, Ganesh Bazar

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1004/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE i) Civil Appeal No.. 9346 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No…

DCIT, Central Circle-6, Income Tax Department vs. Payal Khemka, K

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue and CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1000/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit Vs. Payal Khemka Central Circle- 6 67/85-2 Jhun Bhawan, Natimalivaranashi Delhi Uttar Pradesh 221001 (Pan: Adtpj2728A) Dcit Vs. Pmk Impex Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle- 6 1 Tolstoy Marg, Connaught Place, Delhi New Delhi, Delhi 110001

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT DR
Section 132Section 132(4)

…1) 262 ITR 354 (Ker) CIT vs. K.C.Agnes and Ors (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) ii) 323 ITR 588 (P&H) Paramjit Singh vs. ITO (extracted at page 316 of Paper Book) iii) 316 ITR 46 (Del) CIT vs. Shankutla Devi (extracted at page 317 of Paper Book) iv) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. Asstt. CIT vi) 250 ITR 484 (P&H) CIT vs. Satinder Kumar vii) 323 ITR 510 (P&H) CIT vs. Chandni Bhuchar viii) 49 SOT 732 (Chd) Subash Chand vs. Asstt. CIT 35 THAT MESSAGE EXCHANGED ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS SUCH AS 'WHATSAPP CHAT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE i) Civil Appeal No.. 9346 OF 2019 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No…

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

…of evidence, is not conclusive - Held, yes - Whether assessee can retract from it showing that it was made under mistaken belief of fact or law - Held, yes [Paras 14 to 20] [In favour of assessee] xii) 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin vs. ITO xiii) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT xiv) ITA No. 1502/D/2013 dated 27.6.2014 G. K. Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO 14.4 Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 247 ITR 448 (Bom) CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat ii) 185 Taxman 18 (Chd) Jagdish Chander Bajaj vs. ACIT iii) I.T.A. Nos. 4520, 4521, 4522, 4523, 4524& 4525/Del/ 2010 Sh. Prem Arora vs ACIT…

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

…of evidence, is not conclusive - Held, yes - Whether assessee can retract from it showing that it was made under mistaken belief of fact or law - Held, yes [Paras 14 to 20] [In favour of assessee] xii) 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin vs. ITO xiii) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT xiv) ITA No. 1502/D/2013 dated 27.6.2014 G. K. Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO 14.4 Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 247 ITR 448 (Bom) CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat ii) 185 Taxman 18 (Chd) Jagdish Chander Bajaj vs. ACIT iii) I.T.A. Nos. 4520, 4521, 4522, 4523, 4524& 4525/Del/ 2010 Sh. Prem Arora vs ACIT…

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

…of evidence, is not conclusive - Held, yes - Whether assessee can retract from it showing that it was made under mistaken belief of fact or law - Held, yes [Paras 14 to 20] [In favour of assessee] xii) 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin vs. ITO xiii) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT xiv) ITA No. 1502/D/2013 dated 27.6.2014 G. K. Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO 14.4 Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 247 ITR 448 (Bom) CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat ii) 185 Taxman 18 (Chd) Jagdish Chander Bajaj vs. ACIT iii) I.T.A. Nos. 4520, 4521, 4522, 4523, 4524& 4525/Del/ 2010 Sh. Prem Arora vs ACIT…

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

…of evidence, is not conclusive - Held, yes - Whether assessee can retract from it showing that it was made under mistaken belief of fact or law - Held, yes [Paras 14 to 20] [In favour of assessee] xii) 103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin vs. ITO xiii) 52 SOT 62 (Chd) Rajdeep Builders vs. ACIT xiv) ITA No. 1502/D/2013 dated 27.6.2014 G. K. Consultants Ltd. vs. ITO 14.4 Reliance is placed on the following judgments: i) 247 ITR 448 (Bom) CIT vs. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat ii) 185 Taxman 18 (Chd) Jagdish Chander Bajaj vs. ACIT iii) I.T.A. Nos. 4520, 4521, 4522, 4523, 4524& 4525/Del/ 2010 Sh. Prem Arora vs ACIT…

Savaliya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 402/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…L. Mehrotra (64 TTJ 259) Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad Bench held that estimation of undisclosed income for block assessment cannot be made on the basis of multiplication formula derived from suppression percentage of a few days. (g) In the case of Rajdeep Builders (52 SOT 62) Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench held that AO was not justified to make addition on the basis of statement of one of the purchaser who subsequently retracted his statement in cross-examination. (h) In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala [128 TTJ 36] addition on account of on money was made for purchase of flat. In this case, during the course o…

M/S. Savaliya Buildcon, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

ITA 401/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar, CIT.DR

…L. Mehrotra (64 TTJ 259) Hon'ble ITAT Allahabad Bench held that estimation of undisclosed income for block assessment cannot be made on the basis of multiplication formula derived from suppression percentage of a few days. (g) In the case of Rajdeep Builders (52 SOT 62) Hon'ble ITAT Chandigarh Bench held that AO was not justified to make addition on the basis of statement of one of the purchaser who subsequently retracted his statement in cross-examination. (h) In the case of Jawaharbhai Atmaram Hathiwala [128 TTJ 36] addition on account of on money was made for purchase of flat. In this case, during the course o…

Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 2061/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…, Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) and Order of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Rajdeep Builders vs. 15 ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 & 1797/Del./2015 Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi. ACIT 52 SOT 62 (Chd.). Assessee, therefore, pleaded that no such addition could be made and no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. It was further pleaded that the circle rate of the impugned land is lesser than the amount mentioned in the sale deed. Notification to that effect was also filed to show that assessee executed sale deed at the fair…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Kundan Singh, New Delhi

Appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1797/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri J.K. Mishra, CIT_D.R
Section 132Section 153ASection 69B

…, Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) and Order of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Rajdeep Builders vs. 15 ITA.No.2061/Del./2015 & 1797/Del./2015 Smt. Kundan Singh, New Delhi. ACIT 52 SOT 62 (Chd.). Assessee, therefore, pleaded that no such addition could be made and no adverse inference could be drawn against the assessee. It was further pleaded that the circle rate of the impugned land is lesser than the amount mentioned in the sale deed. Notification to that effect was also filed to show that assessee executed sale deed at the fair…

103 ITD 1 (Mum) (TM)(SB) Uttamchand P.Jaiin v. ITO (52 SOT 62) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax