Ashok Kumar v. ITO

201 CTR 178Reported decision2006#8279 most cited

What is Ashok Kumar v. ITO authority for?

An admission made by an assessee is relevant evidence but is not conclusive. The assessee can explain the circumstances under which the admission was made or prove that it did not reflect the true state of affairs.

13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Ashok Kumar v. ITO · admission is relevant but not conclusive · explain circumstances of admission · assessee can clarify admission · retract statement

Judgments citing Ashok Kumar v. ITO

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 580/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…HC) While an admission made by an assessee is relevant, it is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect the true state of affairs. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. ShriNirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Sh. Madan Lal Gupta, Keshav Nagar, Alwar vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Alwar

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 579/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271D

…HC) While an admission made by an assessee is relevant, it is not conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect the true state of affairs. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. ShriNirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 203/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 201/JPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 200/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 199/JPR/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Dr. Archana Shukla, 26, Dayal Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Tonk Road, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, the above mentioned appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 198/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal, CIT
Section 132(4)

…i 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) (HC) Admissions are relevant & strong piece of evidence that may be used against the person making such admission but they are not conclusive proof of the statement contained in the admission & can always be explained. Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) It is true that an admission is no doubt a relevant piece of evidence but it is never conclusive. It is open to the assessee to explain or clarify under what circumstances it was made or to prove that what was stated did not reflect true state of affairs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia Vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 124 to 126/JP/2019 order dt. 03.06.2019…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 3, Aurangabad vs. M/S. Shyam Trading Company, Beed

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2529/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

…Roller Floor Mill, TaxCorp (DT) 66108 (Guj. – HC). (vi) CIT vs. Relaxo Footwear, 259 ITR 744 (Raj. – HC). (vii) ITO vs. JagdipKanjibhai, 66 TTJ 199 (Ahmedabad – Trib.). (viii) CIT vs. Shib Shankar Das, TaxCorp (DT) 69304 (Cal. – HC). (ix) Ashok Kumar vs. ITO, 201 CTR 178 (J&K – HC). (x) CIT vs. Sri Padmavathi Cotton Mills, 236 ITR 340 (Mad. – HC). 8. It is further contended that the bank never carried out physical inspection of the stock. Therefore, it is submitted that the judicial precedents relied upon by the Assessing Officer has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that th…

M/S. Shyam Trading Company, Beed vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 2, Beed

In the result, the appeal filed the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2706/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Mar 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Chetan KariaFor Respondent: Shri Piyushkumar Singh Yadav
Section 131Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 69

…Roller Floor Mill, TaxCorp (DT) 66108 (Guj. – HC). (vi) CIT vs. Relaxo Footwear, 259 ITR 744 (Raj. – HC). (vii) ITO vs. JagdipKanjibhai, 66 TTJ 199 (Ahmedabad – Trib.). (viii) CIT vs. Shib Shankar Das, TaxCorp (DT) 69304 (Cal. – HC). (ix) Ashok Kumar vs. ITO, 201 CTR 178 (J&K – HC). (x) CIT vs. Sri Padmavathi Cotton Mills, 236 ITR 340 (Mad. – HC). 8. It is further contended that the bank never carried out physical inspection of the stock. Therefore, it is submitted that the judicial precedents relied upon by the Assessing Officer has no application to the facts of the present case. It is further submitted that th…

Ramesh Chand Prop., Narnaul vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Narnaul

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2980/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Mittal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 44ASection 69B

…acilities and deleting the addition on account of difference between stock shown to bank and the stock shown in the books of the assessee.” He has also relied upon the judgment of Jammu & Kashmir High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Income Tax Officer, 201 CTR 178 in which it was held as under: “Addition could not be made on the basis of difference between closing stock declared in the trading account and the stock shown in the statement submitted by the assessee to the bank as the stock position shown to the bank was on estimate basis and inflated value was shown to avail more credit from bank.” 9 ITA.N…

The DCIT(OSD), Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Torrent Cables Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Department is dismissed

ITA 1293/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Shah, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri P. M. Mehta, A.R
Section 145Section 145ASection 14SSection 43B

…herein the decision in the case of Coimbatore Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd, v. CIT [ 1974] 95 ITA Nos. 1293/Ahd/14, 2409/Ahd/15 19 & ITA No. 564/Ahd/2017 . A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14 ITR 375 has been relied on. In the case of AshokKumar v. ITO [2006] 201 CTR 178, the hon'ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has held : 'Addition could not be made on the basis of difference between closing stock declared in the trading account and the stock shown in the statement submitted by the assessee to the bank as the stock position shown to the bank was on estimate basis and inflated value was shown to avail of more…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Vijay Mehta, Jaipur

In the result, revenue’s appeal is partly allowed and assessee’s cross objection is dismissed

ITA 326/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri P.C.Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Verindra Mehta( CIT)
Section 131Section 132Section 69A

…O (2016) 140 DTR 235 (Guj.) (HC) - Pullangode Rubber Produce Company Ltd. V. State of Kerala and another 91 ITR 0018 (SC) - Federal Bank Ltd. Vs. State of Kerela 124 CTR 355 (Ker.) (HC) - CIT Vs. Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 ( Raj.) (HC) - Ashok Kumar Vs. ITO 201 CTR 178 (J&K) (HC) - Rejesh Jain Vs. DCIT 100 TTJ 929 (Del.) (Trib.) 7 ITA No. 326/JP/2016 C.O. No. 8/JP/2016 DCIT Central, Circle-2 vs. Shri Vijay Mehta, Jaipur. - Surendra Pal Verma Vs. ACIT 89 ITD 129 (Chd)™ 3.6 The ld DR is heard who has vehemently argued the matter and relied on the order of the AO. 3.7 We have heard the rival contentions, pursue…

Ashok Kumar v. ITO (201 CTR 178) — Cited in 13 Judgments | BharatTax