26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

63 ITR 449Supreme Court of India1967#3490 most cited

What is 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT authority for?

Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof in income tax assessments. The Assessing Officer must present evidence and allow for cross-examination of material relied upon.

34

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT · 26 ITR 775 (SC) · suspicion vs proof · onus of proof · natural justice · cross-examination · assessment procedure · section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 68Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 133ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 39onus of proofsection 111asection 5(2)substantive assessmentexplanation to section 37audi alteram partemnon application of mindkelvinatorpaper company

Judgments citing 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur vs. Shri Santosh Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 153/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T. S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…is supported by official quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion how so ever strong cannot take place of the character of evidence. In this case it is seen that appellant brought on record all plausible evidences as is expected in these transaction, however, the AO has not brought any material on record to disprove the evidences as adduced by the appellant. The Hon'…

Income Tax Officer-1(3), Kanpur vs. Shri Raj Kumar Agarwal, Kanpur

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 205/LKW/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow17 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri T.S. Kapoor

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…is supported by official quotation issued by Magadh Stock Exchange, therefore, there cannot be any reason to doubt the genuineness of the sale transaction of the shares. It is settled position of law by the decisions reported in 26ITR 776(SC), 37 ITR 288(SC), 63 ITR 449(SC) and 1 SOT 90 (Mum) (supra) that suspicion how so ever strong cannot take place of the character of evidence. In this case it is seen that appellant brought on record all plausible evidences as is expected in these transaction, however, the AO has not brought any material on record to disprove the evidences as adduced by the appellant. The Hon'…

Sarita Bagdi, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(3)

…ch signifies the genuineness of the transaction. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewalav. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum) to support that suspicion even strong enough cannot take the character of evidence. • Himani M. Vakilv. DIT [IT Appeal No. 3106] (ITAT Ahd.) : In this case, it was observed that the assessee had furnished complete details before the A.O. which were not found false or bogus by the A.O. and only on…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…y show cause notice has been issued by him before making the assessment, hence principal of natural justice has been overlooked by the Ld. Income Tax Officer. Case Laws on which assessee has relied on Cash Credit 1. CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd (1967) 63 ITR 449 (SC) Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma Vs. ITO 2. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 782 (SC)t 3 DhirajilalGirdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4. M/s Straptex (India) Limited vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Tax reported in 84 ITD 320 by the IT AT, Bombay 5. Mohd. SocbllajimoosaTumbi v. ITO (2009) 26 DTR 329 (Ahd- Trib) 6. Panchal As…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 1569/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampat, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Suleka Verma, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…mpany to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assessee wanted to produce in support of its case. The result is that the assessee had not had a fair hearing. CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. 63 ITR 449 - We may observe that the High Court appears to have felt some doubt as to the admissibility of the Report of the Income-tax Investigation Commission. But the income-tax authorities are not strictly bound by the rules of evidence, and the mere fact that certain provisions of the Taxation of Income (Investigation Commission) Act relating to the inq…

DCIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sunrise Metallic (India) P.Ld, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…are properly brought on record. These rights of the assessee are based on the concept of natural justice. In this regard, reference is made to and reliance is placed on- i) KishanchandChellaramVs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC), ii) CIT Vs East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. 63 ITR 449 (SC) iii) C. Vasantlal and Co. Vs CIT 45 ITR 206 (SC) and iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 75 (SC). 7 M/s. Sunrise Metallic (India) Pvt. Ltd., In view of above judicial pronouncements, any assessment passed in violation of principles of natural justice is void in the score alone. In the case of Sagar Bose Vs ITO 561 (Kolkatta), t…

Bhanuben Danji Shah, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1735/MUM/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1735/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Bhanuben Danji Shah Asst. Cit-23(2), बनाम/ E/31, Konark Indraprasth, Mumbai 11Th Floor, Jain Mandir Road, Vs. Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Amrps 1215 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prakash L. Pathade सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 16.02.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 24.02.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 26.12.2011, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2004-05 Vide Order Dated 21.12.2006. 2. None Appeared For & On Behalf Of The Assessee-Appellant When The Appeal Was Called Out For Hearing, Nor Any Adjournment Application Stands Received. This, Despite The Hearing Having Been Adjourned For Today Instant At The Request Of The Assessee’S Counsel, Shri Mukul J. Vora (Vide His Letter Dated 22.7.2015/Copy On Record). It Was 2 Bhanuben Danji Shah Vs. Asst. Cit Noted That On Earlier Occasions As Well, The Appellant Has Sought For & Been Granted Adjournment Of Hearing. The Appeal, Filed In 2012, Is Pending Since Long. It Was Under The Circumstances Only Considered It Proper That The Matter To Be Proceeded With & The Appeal Decided After Hearing The Party Before Us & Considering The Material On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L. Pathade
Section 133Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “बी” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, AM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1735/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Bhanuben Danji Shah Asst. CIT-23(2), बनाम/ E/31, Konark Indraprasth, Mumbai 11th Floor, Jain Mandir Road, Vs. Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. AMRPS 1215 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant by : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Prakash L.…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjiv Nanda, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1911/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…cases have been cited in the submissions tiled on behalf of the appellant reproduced later in this Paragraph. 4.3 However, it is also settled law that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CTT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C1T [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to the income tax proceedings {Chuhar…

Mr. Sanjeev Nanda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1850/DEL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal
Section 127(2)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…cases have been cited in the submissions tiled on behalf of the appellant reproduced later in this Paragraph. 4.3 However, it is also settled law that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CTT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law [Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. C1T [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable to the income tax proceedings {Chuhar…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao Through Wife & Legal Heir Smt. Swaranalatha, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2574/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…various reports of the AO, submissions and replies filed on behalf of the appellant, and the order of Hon’ble ITAT cited above. It is to be noted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a ITA Nos.1912, 1905, 1914, 2573 & 2574/Del./2013 15 CO Nos.169 & 171/Del./2013 court of law {Dhakeswari Cottron Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)}. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the pro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao Through Wife & Legal Heir Smt. Swaranalatha, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 2573/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…various reports of the AO, submissions and replies filed on behalf of the appellant, and the order of Hon’ble ITAT cited above. It is to be noted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a ITA Nos.1912, 1905, 1914, 2573 & 2574/Del./2013 15 CO Nos.169 & 171/Del./2013 court of law {Dhakeswari Cottron Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)}. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the pro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1914/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…various reports of the AO, submissions and replies filed on behalf of the appellant, and the order of Hon’ble ITAT cited above. It is to be noted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a ITA Nos.1912, 1905, 1914, 2573 & 2574/Del./2013 15 CO Nos.169 & 171/Del./2013 court of law {Dhakeswari Cottron Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)}. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the pro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1912/DEL/2013[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…various reports of the AO, submissions and replies filed on behalf of the appellant, and the order of Hon’ble ITAT cited above. It is to be noted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a ITA Nos.1912, 1905, 1914, 2573 & 2574/Del./2013 15 CO Nos.169 & 171/Del./2013 court of law {Dhakeswari Cottron Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)}. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the pro…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Late Dr. M.V. Rao, New Delhi

In the result, ground raised by the revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 1905/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Jayant Mishra, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153A

…various reports of the AO, submissions and replies filed on behalf of the appellant, and the order of Hon’ble ITAT cited above. It is to be noted that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to tax proceedings {CIT v East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR 449} and an income tax officer (ITO) can act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a ITA Nos.1912, 1905, 1914, 2573 & 2574/Del./2013 15 CO Nos.169 & 171/Del./2013 court of law {Dhakeswari Cottron Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775; Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1955] 27 ITR 126 (SC)}. The Hon’ble Supreme court held that the pro…