(a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT v. V. B. Aggarwal

49 ITR 650High Court1963#3389 most cited

What is (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT v. V. B. Aggarwal authority for?

The Income Tax Officer has a duty to assist the assessee in producing evidence by exercising powers such as summoning parties, and an assessee is prejudiced if this duty is not fulfilled.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

EMC Works (P) Ltd v ITO · 49 ITR 650 · summoning parties · duty of ITO · assist assessee · produce evidence · section 37 · prejudice to assessee

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 145Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271econstruction pepenalty under section 271dcorpus fundsection 269ton money receiptsection 53joint development agreementsection 269sjdatrcsection 271e

Judgments citing (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT v. V. B. Aggarwal

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 231/JPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…y grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. G…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 230/JPR/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…y grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. G…

Rajasthan Patrika (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 510/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…y grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT v. G…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Ennoble Construction

ITA/383/2016HC Karnataka20 Jul 2022

Bench: KRISHNA S.DIXIT,P.KRISHNA BHAT

Section 260Section 260A

…OFFICER8. There is absolutely no explanation as to why the AO did not choose to invoke this provision in the fitness of things. Nothing prevented him from summoning the 6 402 ITR 7 KAR 7 42 ITR 753 8 49 ITR 650 - 18 - ITA No. 383 of 2016 books of accounts/documents or at least copies thereof from the custody of CBI. The AO having not done his duty, could not have recorded a finding that the claim of Assessee as to transport expenditure was not substantiated. (iii) There is yet another aspect, which merits a bit deliberation. The book…

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4169/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-13(3)(2), M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Jaimala Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Hotel Shimmers, Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaecv 0129 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

…Thus, it the AO does not exercise his power to call the witness and examine him, he cannot treat the deposit in the name of the witness as assessee's suppressed income (Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (AIl); E.M.C. Works Pr. Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All); MunnalalMurlidhar v. CIT, (1971) 79 ITR 540 (Al); R.S. Seth Gopikisan Agarwal v. A.C. of S.T., (1971) Tax LR 355 (MP). Also see, Ashok Electro Diamonds v. Jt. CTO, (1971) 28 TC 21 (Mad); Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhanti v. CST, (1988) 69 STC 229, 230 (All); CIT v. Ter Karadhenu Vyapar Co. Ltd., (2003) 263 ITR 692, 696(cal)]. In a proper…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 • CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) • Nathu Ram Prem Chand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) • EMC Machine Works Vs. CIT 49 ITR 650 (All) • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo 76 ITR 690(SC) • State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty 60 ITR 239 (SC) • Kachwala Germs Vs. CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) 6.3 The assessee also submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that the replies were furnished to the A.O. during the course of assessment proc…

Smt. Saroj Bansal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1226/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

…ers. The 7 ITA 1225 & 1226/JP/2018_ Chitra Bansal Vs ACIT & 1 Anr assessee again submitted that it is beyond her power(s) to compel attendance of the called person. 11. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of EMC (Works) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO reported in 49 ITR 650 wherein it has been held that where application is made by the assessee requesting the AO to issue notice u/s 131 and application was rejected by the AO summarily and assessment completed, action of the AO was held to be without jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Munnalal Murlidhar…

Smt. Chitra Bansal, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assesses are allowed

ITA 1225/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Sept 2020AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma &For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)

…ers. The 7 ITA 1225 & 1226/JP/2018_ Chitra Bansal Vs ACIT & 1 Anr assessee again submitted that it is beyond her power(s) to compel attendance of the called person. 11. The Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of EMC (Works) Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO reported in 49 ITR 650 wherein it has been held that where application is made by the assessee requesting the AO to issue notice u/s 131 and application was rejected by the AO summarily and assessment completed, action of the AO was held to be without jurisdiction. Reliance is also placed on the decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Munnalal Murlidhar…

M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4991/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…ourt as under: “If the AO felt that their examination was absolutely necessary then he could have enforced their attendance as pointed out by Allahabad High Court in Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) and E.M.C. (Works) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All). This Court is of the opinion that when documentary evidence was placed on record to prove the identity of all the shareholders including their PAN/GIR numbers and filing of other documentary evidence in the form of ration card, etc. which had neither been controverter nor disapproved by the AO, then no interference is called for”. In Nathu…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4853/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…ourt as under: “If the AO felt that their examination was absolutely necessary then he could have enforced their attendance as pointed out by Allahabad High Court in Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) and E.M.C. (Works) (P) Ltd. v. ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All). This Court is of the opinion that when documentary evidence was placed on record to prove the identity of all the shareholders including their PAN/GIR numbers and filing of other documentary evidence in the form of ration card, etc. which had neither been controverter nor disapproved by the AO, then no interference is called for”. In Nathu…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…der the head current liabilities, did not hold good in law. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Niranjanlal Ramballabh Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 459 (Nag) " Nathu Ram Premchand Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) " E M C (Works) (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All) " Munnalal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All) " Surmukh Singh Uppal (Dr) Vs CIT (1983) 144 ITR 200 (P&H) " N C K Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (2007) 289 ITR (AT) 89 (Mum) 10. It was further submitted that where the assessee furnished the evidences to prove the identity of the creditors and furnished confirmation letter indicating thei…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. M.N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…der the head current liabilities, did not hold good in law. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Niranjanlal Ramballabh Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 459 (Nag) " Nathu Ram Premchand Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) " E M C (Works) (P) Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All) " Munnalal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All) " Surmukh Singh Uppal (Dr) Vs CIT (1983) 144 ITR 200 (P&H) " N C K Sons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (2007) 289 ITR (AT) 89 (Mum) 10. It was further submitted that where the assessee furnished the evidences to prove the identity of the creditors and furnished confirmation letter indicating thei…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Anand Tissues Ltd., Meerut

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3897/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri L. P. Sahui. T. Appeal No. 3897/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10. Asstt. Commissioner M/S. Anand Tissues Ltd., Of Income Tax, Vs. 16 Km., Meerut Mawana Road, Circle : 1, Meerut. Vill. Fitkari, Meerut. M E E R U T. Pan : Aabca 1790 R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv Sapra, F.C.A.; &For Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr. D. R
Section 133(6)Section 41

…y evidences and cited the following decisions in support :- 5 I. T. Appeal No. 3897/Del/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10. (i) Nathu Ram Chand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All.); (ii) CIT Vs. Makhni & Tyagi (P.) Ltd. 267 ITR 433 (Del.); (iii) EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All.); (iv) JCIT Vs. Mathura Das Ashok Kumar 101 TTJ (All.) 810; (v) Crystal Network Vs. CIT 353 ITR 171 (Cal.). 3.3 Having gone through the orders of the authorities below, we find that the Assessing Officer had noted total sundry creditors were of Rs.9.14 crores. Enquiry letters were addressed to 50 parties, who had credit balances outstandin…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 68

…37 ITR 288 (SC) " Sri Ram Tandon Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All.) " Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) " Ali Huesin Vs STO (1988) 68 STC 319 (Ori) " Ashok Electro Diamonds Vs Jt. CTO (1971) 28 STC 21 (Mad.) " EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All.) " Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhati Vs CST (1988) STC 229 " Munnalal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All.) " KS Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs AC of ST (1971) Tax LR 355 (MP) " Pravin Colour Co. Vs ITO (1977) Taxation 48(6)- 155 (Bom-Trib.) " Nathu Ram Prem Chnad Vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All) " CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. (1986) 159…

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Energy Solutions International India Pvt Ltd

ITTA/383/2016HC Telangana17 Feb 2017

Bench: J. UMA DEVI,V RAMASUBRAMANIAN