A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT

34 ITR 328High Court1958#3804 most cited

What is A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT authority for?

An assessment officer cannot assume illegality in an assessee's transaction without material evidence, and the onus is on the party claiming illegality to prove it.

31

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT · 34 ITR 328 · assumption of illegality · onus of proof · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditor · section 68 · section 133(6) · section 131

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 131Section 69CSection 115BBESection 132Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)section 131(1)shell companyprincipal commissioner of income-taxcreditworthiness of the creditorentry operatoraddition under section 68section 34section 133genuineness of the transactionshare application moneyaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing A.S. Sivan Pillai v. CIT

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 8…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Saroj Parwal, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 8…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Bitthal Das Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 750/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 8…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S Hari Narain Parwal, HUF, Jaipur

ITA 748/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…such share transactions cannot be taxed under section 68 of the Act. 5.7. It is settled rule of law that any malpractice, like that of selling by short measures (Hira Bai Vs. CIT 4 ITR 95) or charging price in excess of the controlled price (Sivan Vs. CIT 34 ITR 328, CAG. IT Vs. Cherian 117 ITR 371) or selling smuggled goods (Lal Chand Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) etc. cannot be attributed in general to the assessee that he followed such practice. The ordinary presumption of law is that apparent state of affairs is real unless the contrary is proved (Kalva Vs. Union of India 49 ITR 165 (SC), CIT Vs. Daulat Ram 8…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Et Infra Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3563/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble[Assessment Year: 2011-12] Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Tax, Ltd. Central Circle-28, Room E-9, Panchsheel Park, No.317, Ara Centre, New Delhi-110017 Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Revenue Assessee Cross Objection No.277/Del/2016 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3563/Del/2016) [Assessment Year: 2011-12] M/S Et Infra Developers Pvt. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Ltd. Tax, E-9, Panchsheel Park, Central Circle-28, Room New Delhi-110017 No.317, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan, New Delhi-110055 Pan-Aacce3646D Assessee Revenue Revenue By Sh. Satpal Gulati Cit-Dr Assessee By Sh. M.P. Rastogi, Advocate

Section 132Section 153A

…1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Calcutta Discount Company Ltd. [1973] 91 ITR 8 (SC) 3. Sri Ramalinga Choodambikai Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1955] 28 ITR 952 (Mad) 4. S. Sivan Pillai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax (1958) 34 ITR 328 (Mad) 14.1 As far as page 10 of Annexure A-24/D-7 is concerned, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has explained that it reveals the area of flat and unit Nos.617 and 618. Unit No. 617 was sold to Mr Sudhir Goel on 17* November 2010 and unit No. 618 was sold to M/s Kapish Printpack Pvt. Ltd. on 2nd December 2012 and in f…

ACIT-8(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rabo India Finance Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is dismissed

ITA 1459/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 69

…13-14 Page 6 of 9 it would have also violated the provisions of Company Law, FEMA and various other laws that would have attracted major penalty. The ld. Counsel to support his argument placed reliance on the decision in the case of A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT, 34 ITR 328(Mad). 8. In respect of ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had availed ECB loan under automatic route. The assessee had availed ECB to finance its working capital requirement in India. The interest on ECB paid to Rabobank Hong Kong was offered to tax in its return of income for the relevan…

Rabo India Finance Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal is allowed in the terms indicated above

ITA 2177/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2021AY 2012-13
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 253Section 69

…g Income tax Act, it would have also violated the provisions of Company Law, FEMA and various other laws that would have attracted major penalty. The ld. Counsel to support his argument placed reliance on the decision in the case of A.S. Sivan Pillai vs. CIT, 34 ITR 328(Mad). 8. In respect of ground No. 3 and 4 of the appeal, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had availed ECB loan under automatic route. The assessee had availed ECB to finance its working capital requirement in India. The interest on ECB paid to Rabobank Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 6 of 9 Hong Kong was offered to tax in…

Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/JPR/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1503/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Vishnu Prasad, D.C.I.T. Vs. Namdev Export, Circle-7, Opp.-Dhanopia Textiles, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aappp 9225 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Made By A.O. U/S 68 Alleging Cash Deposits In Bank Account As Undisclosed Income. 1.1 That, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Ignoring The Submission Of Assessee That The Said Amount Represented Sale Consideration Received By Assessee For Sale Of Land.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.CIT)
Section 68

…relied upon the following case laws: 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing etc Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 8 ITA 1503/JP/2018_ Sh. Vishnu Prasad Vs DCIT 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 6. On the other hand, the ld DR has relied on the orders of the revenue authorities. 7. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. We also deliberated upon the judicial pronouncements referred by the parties. From perusal of the record, as per facts of the…

The ACIT Cen Cir-13, Mumbai vs. Shri Suresh V. Jain, Mumbai

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…ion, howsoever strong it may be, does nottake place of place of proof. The seized documents cannot take place of proof, rather they merely create suspicion. This view is supported by the decision of'H'ble-Madras High Court in the case of Sivan Pillai v/s. CIT 34 ITR 328 and the decision of H'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT v/s. ChimanlalDhingra 121 Taxation 272, 273. The legal position in this respect is firmly settled by now. While completing an assessment the Assessing Officer is not a court. He is also not bound by technical rules of evidence. At the same time though technical rules of evidence do not apply, t…

Kartikeyas Manganese & Iron Ores Private Limited, Bellary vs. DCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeals for Assessment Years 2008-09

ITA 832/BANG/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep, C.AFor Respondent: Shri K.V.Arvind, Standing Counsel for Dept
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 153C

…made based on third party statements: PCIT vs Saumya Construction P Ltd - 387 ITR 529 - GUJ HC CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd - 288 ITR 345 - Delhi HC suspicion: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT - 26 ITR 775 – SC (CLPB page 155/156) A.S.Sivan Pillai vs CIT - 34 ITR 328 - Madras HC(CLPB page 162/163) On the issue that admission is not conclusive and has no evidentiary value: Pullangode Rubber Produce Co Ltd vs. State of Kerala & Anr - 91 ITR 18 - Supreme Court (CLPB page 189/190) CIT vs. S.Khader Khan Son - 352 ITR 480 – SC (CLPB page 336) CBDT Instruction No.F.No.286/2/2003/IT(Inv) - confession of additional in…

DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 512/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jul 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri D.C. Kothari (CIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 512/JP/15 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke The DCIT, Circle-2, M/s Pyramid Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Jaipur. 513’ Sin Moon Chambers, Plot No. S-4, Kalwad Scheme, Near Ajmer Flyover, Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.: AAECP9897M vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrhdh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.) jktLo dh vks…