Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT

223 ITR 544High Court1997#3353 most cited

What is Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT authority for?

Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked if cash credits are not recorded in the assessee's books of account, or if the assessee has filed a return under Section 44AD without maintaining books of account. The existence of books of account is a prerequisite for invoking Section 68.

35

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

Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT · Section 68 · Section 44AD · books of account · cash credit · condition precedent · AO · assessment · Gauhati High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 1961Section 148Section 250Section 44ADSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

Issues it is cited on

prejudicial to interest of revenueinadequate enquiryassessment order erroneouslack of enquirysource of sourceaddition u/s 68mere change of opinionmalabar industrialsection 44adsection 44achildaddition under section 68

Judgments citing Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 66/IND/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…d/21&ITA.328-330/Ind/20 assessee’s income cannot be sustained on this legal count alone. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (2008) 113 TTJ (Del.) 178 ii) Anand Ram Ratiani vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59 (Bom.) 3.01 That, during the relevant previous year, the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate developers under the proprietorship concern named and styled as ‘M/s. Royal Colonizers, Builders & Developers’. 3.02 That, the impugned addition of Rs.2,85,38,400/- so made by t…

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 65/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…d/21&ITA.328-330/Ind/20 assessee’s income cannot be sustained on this legal count alone. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (2008) 113 TTJ (Del.) 178 ii) Anand Ram Ratiani vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59 (Bom.) 3.01 That, during the relevant previous year, the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate developers under the proprietorship concern named and styled as ‘M/s. Royal Colonizers, Builders & Developers’. 3.02 That, the impugned addition of Rs.2,85,38,400/- so made by t…

DCIT, Central-1, Indore vs. Shri Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Mhow

ITA 64/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 143Section 144

…d/21&ITA.328-330/Ind/20 assessee’s income cannot be sustained on this legal count alone. For such proposition, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Ms. Mayawati vs. DCIT (2008) 113 TTJ (Del.) 178 ii) Anand Ram Ratiani vs. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) iii) CIT vs. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1982] 11 Taxman 59 (Bom.) 3.01 That, during the relevant previous year, the assessee was engaged in the business of real estate developers under the proprietorship concern named and styled as ‘M/s. Royal Colonizers, Builders & Developers’. 3.02 That, the impugned addition of Rs.2,85,38,400/- so made by t…

Smt Kushalappa Savitri, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2236/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Kannan Narayanan, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT)
Section 154Section 68

…sums so credited. In such a situation, the banks would be taxed for unexplained cash credits which is an absurd consequence. The ld. DR relied on the following decisions:- - CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67 (Bom) - CIT v. Anand Ram Raitani [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gauhati) Page 7 of 17 - A. Ram Mohan v. State in CRL.R.C.No.265 of 2015 dated 30.03.2015 - Dr.K.M. Mehboob v. DCIT [2012] 26 taxmann.com 54 (Ker.) 14. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. The AO made the addition on the reason that the assessee has deposited cheque bearing No.3564 on 13.7.2012. We have carefully g…

Sri Sukhamaya Das, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-3(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 232/CTK/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shri Chandra Mohan Garg, Judicialassessment Year : 2013-14 Sri Sukhmaya Das, Sri Sukhmaya Das, At-N/3/69, Vs. Dcit, Circle -3(1), 3(1), Irc Irc Village, Village, Nayapalli, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Aeppd 2993 A Aeppd 2993 A (Appellant) (Appellant .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri J.M.Pattnaik, Ar , Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Dr Dr Date Of Hearing : 28/05/ 2021 1 Date Of Pronouncement : 14 /06/20 /2021 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri J.M.Pattnaik, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, DR
Section 68Section 80C

…A) is illegal and non-application of mind. 9. Ld A.R. further submitted that in this case section 68 of the Act is not attracted at all. He relied on the following judicial pronouncements: i) Baladin Ram, vs CIT, 71 ITR 427 (SC) ii) Anandram Raitani vs CIT, 223 ITR 544 (Gau) iii) Smt. Madhu Raitani vs ACIT, 45 SOT 231 (Gau)™ iv) Smt. Manasi Mahendra Pitkar vs ITO, 73 Taxman.com 68. v) Mehul vs Vyas vs ITO, 80 Taxman.com 311 vi) Amitabh Bansal vs ITO, 175 ITD 401 (Del) vii) CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi, (1983) 53 company cases 400 (Bom) 10. Ld DR submitted that the assessee has failed miserably to furnish necessary…

Dineshkumar Verma, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Kalyan

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1183/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthyआअसं. 1183/मुं/2019 ("न.व.2014-15) Dineshkumar Verma, 102, Sai Aashram Apartment, 2Nd Floor, Tejumal Chaki Road, Nr. Sadhubela School, Ulhasnagar, : अपीलाथ"/ Appellant Tahane 421 001 Pan : Acmpv 7468B बनाम/ Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Tanmay PhadkeFor Respondent: Ms. Smita Verma
Section 44ASection 68

…ons of section 68 cannot be invoked where the assessee has filed return of income under the provisions of section 44AD of the Act without maintaining books of account. 13. The Hon’ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of Anand Ram Raitani vs. CIT reported as 223 ITR 544 has held that existence of books of account is a condition precedent for invoking the provisions of section 68 by the Assessing Officer. The relevant extract of the judgement is as under: “We have gone through section 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer before invoking the power under section 68 of the Act must be satisfied that there are books…

Sh. Surinder Kumar Sanpal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result Ground no 3 of the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 3362/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysurinder Kumar Sanpal, Vs. Ito, A-250, New Subzi Mandi, Ward-19(4), Azadpur, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Abbps5068C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Akash Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…(HUF) v. CIT [2016] 69 taxmann.com 219/239 Taxman 264 (SC) after referring decision s such as Baladin Ram v. CIT [1969] 71 ITR 427 (SC) (para 7), CIT v. Bhaichand N. Gandhi [1983] 141 ITR 67/[1982] 11 Taxman 59 (Bom.) (para 7), Anand Ram Raitani v. CIT [1997] 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) (para 7), CIT v. Smt. Usha Jain [1990] 182 ITR 487/52 Taxman 12 (Delhi) (para 7), CIT v. Taj Borewells [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad.) (para 8), Sudhir Kumar Sharma (HUF) v. CIT [2014] 224 Taxman 178/46 taxmann.com 340 (Punj. & Har.) (para 10) . Therefore we reject that argument of the assessee that provision of section 68 does not apply when th…

Shri Manpreet Singh, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 295/CTK/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Mar 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Ambika Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ok of the assessee. In this regard, ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V Bhaichand S Gandhi. [1983] 141ITR 67 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court, in case of AnandRam Raitani Vrs. CIT (1997)223 ITR 544, and submitted that the Assessing officer before invoking the power under section 68 of the Act must be satisfied that there are books of accounts maintained by the assessee and the cash credit is recorded in the said books of accounts. Thus existence of books of accounts is a pre-condition for invoking power and discharging the burden is a subse…

Sh. Nanak Chand, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Hapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 552/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 552/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Nanak Chand, Vs Income Tax Officer, 285, Durga Colony, Chopla Garh, Ward-3(4), Mukteshwar, Distt. Hapur Hapur (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Akcpc7135L Assessee By : Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.05.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.11.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 10(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

…AT: " Dinesh Singh Vs ITO in ITA Nos. 1196 & 1197/Chd/2013 (Chd.) " Shinde Narasu Shripati Vs AO in ITA No. 2159/PN/2013 (Pune) " ITO Vs Mrs. Deepali Sehgal in ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 (Del.) " CIT Vs Bhaichand H Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom) " Anandram Raytani Vs CIT 223 ITR 544 (Gua) " ITO Vs M/s Murlidhar Ice-Cream & Sweet Parlour in ITA No. 531/Ahd/2012 (Ahd.) " Jagdish N. Thakkar Vs ITO in ITA No. 1475/Mum/2009 (Mum.) " Smt. Satya Bhama Bindal Vs ITO in ITA No. 713/Chd/2012 (Chd.) " ITO Vs Deb Kumar Jana in ITA No. 263/Kol/2012 (Kol.) It was contended that the AO without considering the withdraws made from the bank a…

V.Rajendrababu, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 141/CHNY/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. K. Meenakshi Sundaram, ITPFor Respondent: Shri. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 68

…accounts, an addition could not be made u/s. 68 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following judgments. 1. Smt. Shantha Devi vs. CIT (1988) 171 ITR 532 (P & H) 2. CIT vs. Bhaichand H. Gandhi (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) 3. Anand Ram Raithani vs. CIT ( 1997) 223 ITR 544 (Guj) Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative submitted that 5. despite summons, concerned creditors did not appear before ld. Assessing Officer. According to him, a number of opportunities were :- 4 -: granted to the assessee to bring the creditors but assessee had failed to bring them or substantiate its claim of loans. Further, accordi…

Goutam Das, Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir-48, Kolkata

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

ITA 1235/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 68

…oks of Goutam Das, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 accounts as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions :- Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Anandram Raitani vs CIT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi reported in (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Taj Borewells reported in (2008) 202 Taxman 413 (Mad). Apart from the above, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld AO that the entire cash deposits are met out of previo…

Goutam Das, Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir-48, Kolkata

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

ITA 1209/KOL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: N o n e
Section 143(3)Section 68

…oks of Goutam Das, AY 2006-07 & 2007-08 accounts as contemplated u/s 68 of the Act. In support of this proposition, the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions :- Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Anandram Raitani vs CIT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 544 (Gau) Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs Bhaichand H Gandhi reported in (1983) 141 ITR 67 (Bom) Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Taj Borewells reported in (2008) 202 Taxman 413 (Mad). Apart from the above, the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the ld AO that the entire cash deposits are met out of previo…

Bimal Chandra Hazra, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-52(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 834/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Dec 2016AY 2006-2007

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-07) Shri Bimal Chandra Hazra Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - C/O P.K.Mathur, Advocate, 1 52(2) Aayakar Bhavan, Meredith Street, Kolkata- Dakshin, 2 Gariahat Road, 700072 Kolkata-700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abcph 5382F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : S.M. Surana, Advocate "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Banibra Dutta, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 19/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 05/12/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-2007, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata In Appeal No.123/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward/52(2)/Kol/09-10, Dated 16.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 35,50,000/- In His Bank Account With The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Ultandanga Branch, Kolkata On Various Dates During The Financial Year 2005-06. The Authorised Representative (Ar) Of The Assessee Appeared Before The Assessing Officer & Submitted His Explanation Through Letter Dated 27- 12-2008 Stating That The Following Amounts Were Deposited In Cash In His

For Appellant: Shri Banibra Dutta, Addl.CITFor Respondent: S.M. Surana, Advocate
Section 143(3)Section 68

…decision taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice at the Bar. For the reason aforementioned, we answer the question in the negative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and dispose of the reference accordingly. No costs.” (4) 223 ITR 544 ( Gau-HC): Anand Ram Raitani Vs. CIT “In this connection, Mr.Bhattachrjee has drawn our attention to a decision of a Punjab and Haryana High Court in Smt. Shanta Devi V. CIT [1988] 171 ITR 532 (P &H). In the said decision, the Panjab & Haryana High Court had the occasion to consider a similar point. While deciding the point the court observed tha…

C.K. Ramakrishna, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 550/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2015AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Yadav, CIT (D.R)
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 68Section 69

…f this proposition, the learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the following judicial pronouncements :- (i) CIT V Bhaichead H Gandhi reported in 147 ITR 67 (Bom) (ii) Baladev Ram V CIT reported in 71 ITR 427 (SC). (iii) Anand Ram Raiane V CIT in 223 ITR 544 (Gau.) 6.1.4 On the merits of the case, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that as per the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2009-10, accompanied by the computation of income, the assessee derives income from salary from employment with M/s. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. as per salary certificate submitted. It is contended t…

R. Muniraju, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

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

ITA 1246/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Feb 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Abraham P George

For Appellant: Shri Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri P. Dhivahar, JCIT
Section 68

…ere maintained Section 68 could not be invoked. According to the learned AR, bank pass-book could never be construed as books maintained by the assessee. Reliance was placed on a decision of Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Anand Ram Raitani Vs CIT 223 ITR 544. 6 ITA No.1246B)/13 7. Per contra, the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 8. We have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. What we find is that, assessee had indeed produced a cash book before the AO. In fact various confirmation obtained by the assessee from its debtors, reflecting repayment in cash by the…