Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar

41 ITD 449Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1992#9790 most cited
11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 132(4)Section 144Section 153CSection 69CSection 115BBESection 131Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

dumb documentssurvey under section 133abusiness connectionsection 132(4a)loose papersdocuments seizedunexplained moneyunexplained expendituresection 132(4)section 10undisclosed incomesection 69c

Judgments citing Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar

GEETA DEVI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ITO WD 1(4), JPR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…by the assessing officer towards on money. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to delete addition of Rs. 3,05,00,000 made towards on money. e) Doon Valley Roller Flour Mills P limited Vs IAC (1989) 31 ITD 238 (Del) f) ACIT V Sri Radheshyam Poddar (1992 41 ITD 449 (Cal.) g) Kollipara Subba Rao Vs ITO (1990) 32 ITD 668 (hyd.) h) CIT V D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) i) Amar Natvarlal shah Vs ACIT (1997) 60 ITD 560 (Ahd) j) Brijlal Roopchand V ITO (1991) 40 TTJ (indore) 668 k) ACIT V Ashok Kumar Poddar (2008) 16 DTR (kol.) (Trib.) 55 Further it is submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is n…

SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI,KOTA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…by the assessing officer towards on money. Therefore, we direct the assessing officer to delete addition of Rs. 3,05,00,000 made towards on money. e) Doon Valley Roller Flour Mills P limited Vs IAC (1989) 31 ITD 238 (Del) f) ACIT V Sri Radheshyam Poddar (1992 41 ITD 449 (Cal.) g) Kollipara Subba Rao Vs ITO (1990) 32 ITD 668 (hyd.) h) CIT V D K Gupta (2009) 308 ITR 230 (Del) i) Amar Natvarlal shah Vs ACIT (1997) 60 ITD 560 (Ahd) j) Brijlal Roopchand V ITO (1991) 40 TTJ (indore) 668 k) ACIT V Ashok Kumar Poddar (2008) 16 DTR (kol.) (Trib.) 55 Further it is submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT(A) is n…

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. UNIQUE REALITIES BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…171 88 taxmann.com 620]. 8 Unique Realities Builders & Developers A.Y. 2018–19 and 2019–20 12. The Hon'ble Delhi High in case of Kaycee Electricals v. DCIT, 87 ITD 35 (Del.). 13. The Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal). 14. The Delhi Tribunal in the case of Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi). As far as the question of tenability of addition under section 69A is considered the same cannot be made as in first place no money, bullion, jewellery etc is found from the possession of the the appellant and second there the appellant is not conclusively…

SRI. D. K SHIVAKUMAR ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), BENGALURU

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

…itions cannot be made simply on the basis of rough scribbling made by some unidentified person on few loose sheets of papers. 35. Our attention was further drawn to the decision of the Kolkata Tribunal in the case of Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar [1992] 41 ITD 449 (Cal) (Copy enclosed at pages 368-372 of assessee's Paper Book) wherein it was held that no addition can be made simply on the basis of an unsigned piece of paper. Held as under (at para 5 of the order):— "After hearing the rival submissions we are of the opinion that the assessee should succeed in this regard. It is no doubt true that as per the…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIR.-2,, SURAT vs. SHRI RAMESHBHAI RAGHAVBHAI BHADANI, SURAT

In the result, summarized and concise ground No

ITA 45/SRT/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.25 &31/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Deputy Commissioner Of Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Fashion, 14, Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No. 505, 5Th Floor, Nirman Industrial Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Vs. Surat-395001. Deputy Commissioner Of Income- Rameshbai Raghavhai Bhadani Plot No.14-16, Nirman Tax, Central Circle-2, Room No.505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Majura Industrial Estate, A./K. Road, Surat-395008 Gate, Surat-395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.45/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) Deputy Commissioner Of Shri Rameshbhai Raghavbhai Income-Tax, Circle-3, Room No. Bhadani, Prop. Of M/S Rangeela Vs. 505, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, Fashion, 14, Nirman Industrial Majura Gate, Surat-395001. Estate, A.K. Road, Fulpada, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adkpb 0556 F (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri H. P. Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)

…n by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in several cases. The assessee’s case also stand covered by the case laws of CIT vs. Gian Gupa (2014) 369 ITR 248 (Del); M.M. Financers (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2007) 107 TTJ 200 (Chennai ITAT) and; ACIT vs. Shri Radheshyam Poddar (1992) 41 ITD 449 (Kolkata ITAT) wherein it has been held that no course of action could arise in any court of law on the basis of an unsigned document and the addition made on the basis of such unsigned documents were not sustainable. The assessee’s case is even supported by the case laws of Nishant Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2019) 57 CCH 83 (Ahmedabad ITAT)…

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD vs. PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…ents:- - Asstt, CIT v. Dr.Kamla Prasad Singhf20101 3 ITR (TRIB.) 533 (Pat.): - Pioneer Publicity Corpn. v. Dy. CIT [20001 67 TTJ f Delhi) 471: - CIT v. Girish Chaudhary f20071 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91 TTJ (Delhi) 938; - Pr. CIT v. Ajanta Footcare (India) (P.) Lt…

PAWAN SATYNARAYAN JALAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2)., AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…ents:- - Asstt, CIT v. Dr.Kamla Prasad Singhf20101 3 ITR (TRIB.) 533 (Pat.): - Pioneer Publicity Corpn. v. Dy. CIT [20001 67 TTJ f Delhi) 471: - CIT v. Girish Chaudhary f20071 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91 TTJ (Delhi) 938; - Pr. CIT v. Ajanta Footcare (India) (P.) Lt…

MATHURA ENTERPRISES,MUMBAI vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 21(1), MUMBAI

In the result the appeals by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7096/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Dr. P. Daniel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Debashish Chandra,D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 234Section 68

…Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT (1999) 64 TTJ (Del) 786. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that no addition can be made on the basis of unsigned piece of paper which is a dumb document by relying on the decision of Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Radheshyam Poddar (1992) 41 ITD 449. The Ld. A.R. further contended that addition under section 68 of the Act can only be made in relation to those transactions which are recorded in the books of the accounts of the assessee and not otherwise. In the present case, the AO noted that these transactions of cash were not recorded in the books of accounts but despite that the addition wa…

BRIJ MAHAJAN,,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

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

ITA 608/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2007-08] Shri Brij Mahajan Vs. The A.C.I.T 2 , Avenue Cassia Westend Central Circle - 2 Greens, Rajokari New Delhi New Delhi Pan : Akdpm 1320 J [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2017

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan- CIT [DR]
Section 132

…2 (4A) is rebuttable presumption he relied on the following case law a. ITO vs Ved Prakash Choudhary 305 ITR 245 (Delhi) b. M.M.Financers (P) ltd vs DCIT 17 SOT 5 (Chennai) ITAT c. ACIT vs S. Preetha ITA Nos 1313 to 1319/mds/2012 d. ACIT vs Radheshyam Poddar 41 ITD 449 (Cal ) ITAT 13. On the basis of above arguments the case of the assessee is that the AO has made the addition only on the basis of unsigned document without testing the veracity of the same even with the DVO report which was obtained by him after making the DVO aware that an unsigned agreement of value of Rs. 21.96 Crore is found during the cours…

Asstt. CIT v. Sri Radheshyam Poddar (41 ITD 449) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax