Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

113 ITR 389High Court1978#1225 most cited

What is Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. authority for?

The Assessing Officer is competent to accept or draw proper inferences from auditors' reports. When books of accounts are audited by chartered accountants and there is no material on record to show they are unreliable, no addition challenging deductions supported by those books is tenable.

92

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. · 113 ITR 389 · section 143(3) · audited books of accounts · reliability of accounts · Assessing Officer powers · additions without material · burden of proof · auditors' report · income tax assessment · inference from audit

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Addl. CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd.

Sanjay Matai, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ajmer

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

ITA 375/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 375/Jp/2016 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2008-09 Shri Sanjay Matai, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Prop.-M/S Metro Wines, Madar Ward-1(2), Gate, Ajmer. Ajmer. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Alkpm 9533 D Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 15/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 08/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 25/01/2016 For The A.Y. 2008-09 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whereas On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A), Ajmer Has Grossly Erred In Not Accepting The Application Under Rule 46-A Submitted During The Course Of Appeal Proceedings Stating There In That Though Complete Details & Evidence Were Filed Before The Assessing Officer During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings Which Were Not Considered Prospectively. It Is Therefore Respectfully Requested Before Your Honour That Application Under Rule 46A Of The I.T.Act,1961 Of The Appellant Deserves To Be Accepted.

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…tainly elaborated the same in the written submissions filed before them (PB 89-97) but appears to have escaped kind attention. 5.3 Even Audited accounts is an admissible material and cannot be ignored as held in Addl. CIT v/s Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 389 (Delhi) (DPB-9-11). 5.4 Interestingly, S.145 does not specify any set of accounts to be maintained by an assessee. Also, Rule 6F of Income Tax Rules, 1962 prescribes certain set of books only for professionals and not for other assessee's or businesses or traders. 5.5 Even Rule 46A (b) & (c) were fully applicable. 6. Legal Position as regards Pow…

M/S. Lucky Exports, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 771/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2008-09 Lucky Exports, Vs Dcit, Ug-28, Som Dutt Chambers-Ii, Circle-24(1), 9, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaafl1147P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2013 Of The Cit(A)-28, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Is Engaged In The Business As Merchant Exporter. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27Th September, 2008 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.2,96,21,168/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Observed From The Profit & Loss Account That The Assessee Has Claimed A Sum Of Rs.1,61,35,879/- Under The Head ‘Write Off/Bad Debt.’ He, Therefore, Asked The Assessee To Explain & Justify The Advances /Bad Debt Written Off In Respect Of 22 Parties. He Asked The Assessee To File Partywise Explanation & Justification Of Bad Debt/Advances Written Off & To Produce The Copy Of Account & Names Of Such Parties For The Last Three Years. He Also Asked The Assessee To File: (A) Copy Of Bank Statement When Payment Of Advances Written Off Were Made; (B) Complete Name, Address, Pan & Contact Details Of The Parties Including Current Address, If Any; & (C) Copy Of Correspondence Made In Connection With Recovery Of Loan/Advances Written Off.

For Appellant: Shri Naveen N.D. Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 37Section 37(1)

…sition to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not at all be appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd., 113 ITR 389, he submitted that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the said decision has held that income-tax authorities could rely on the report of the auditors if detailed information of the claims were not available. 11 He submitted that the AO rejected the claim of the assessee on the ground that the genuineness of the transaction and nature of advances is…

Hindustan Shipyard Ltd, Visakhapatnam vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 451/VIZ/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Jan 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.451/Viz/2017 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Gandhigram Income Tax Visakhapatnam Circle-3(1) Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaach4275P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Shri D.K.Sonowal, Cit Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2019 01.02.2019 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT DR

…n subsequent years, in which the bills have been processed adhering to the procedures. In support of the claim of the assessee relied on the decision of CIT Vs. Marshall Sons Co.(I) Ltd. (1995) (124 CTR 213) and Addl.CIT Vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1979) (113 ITR 389). The AO considered the submissions of the assessee and observed that the assessee 4 I.T.A. No.451/Viz/2017 M/s Hindustan Shipyard Ltd., Visakhapatnam is following mercantile system of accounting and as per the system of accounting followed by the assessee, the assessee has to claim the expenditure as well as the income on accrual basis. The AO…