Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT

64 TTJ 786Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1999#3290 most cited

What is Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made based on seized documents that are unclear about whether the items represent payments, receipts, or other calculations, especially when corroborative evidence is lacking. Similarly, additions for investments based on seized papers are invalid if the items themselves were not found.

36

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2024.

Also referred to as

Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT · 64 TTJ 786 · seized documents · unclear entries · corroborative evidence · addition to income · diamond jewellery · section 132(4A)

Sections most often in play

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 269SS

Issues it is cited on

peak credit theorysection 28(iv)surrender of incomesection 65bsection 65section 131(1a)section 132(4a)section 40a(ia)right to receiveshort term capital gainssection 292cpanchnama

Judgments citing Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 62/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ever, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case of the appellant. In the case of Atul Kumar Jain Vs DCIT 64 TTJ 786 the issue was absence of corroborative Material evidence. In the present case there are corroborative material in the form of impounded papers which shows charging of interest by the appellant at the rate of 1.5 percent per month. In view of the above facts the decision of the Assessing Officer is found to be justified. This ground of appeal is tr…

Shri Shyamsundar Soni Karta HUF, Bikaner vs. ACIT, Circle, Bikaner

In the results the appeal filed by the

ITA 61/JODH/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Its Hearing Before Your Honours.”

Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

…ever, there is no issue of ignoring cash flow statement in this case. Hence, this decision is not found applicable. whether the impounded diary belongs to the assessee. This is not the issue in the case of the appellant. In the case of Atul Kumar Jain Vs DCIT 64 TTJ 786 the issue was absence of corroborative Material evidence. In the present case there are corroborative material in the form of impounded papers which shows charging of interest by the appellant at the rate of 1.5 percent per month. In view of the above facts the decision of the Assessing Officer is found to be justified. This ground of appeal is tr…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 629/ASR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sabharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 628/ASR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

Shrimati Suman Sbharwal, Jalandhar vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2, Jalandhar

In the result, all the captioned three appeals of the assessee are

ITA 627/ASR/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar20 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Ashray Sarna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. A. Nos. 627 to 629/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2012-13 to 2014-15 Smt. Suman Sabharwal, V. A.C.I.T., 435, New Jawahar Nagar, Central Circle-2, Jalandhar Jalandhar [PAN: ABQPS 4191K] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Ashray Sarna, CA Respondent by : Sh. Rohit Mehra, CIT-D.R. Date of Hearing : 07.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.02.2023 ORDER Per Bench: The captioned appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commis…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…ed on seized documents which are capable of several/various interpretations, lacks evidentiary value and is not sufficient enough to fasten tax liability on the assessee. The above views find support from the ratio of the decision in Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 Delhi, in paras 6.4 to 6.13 thereof which are quite elaborate and illuminating on the subject and are therefore reproduced as under:- 6.4. We find that the AO has made out the case for making such addition based exclusively on the said piece of paper found and seized during the course of search. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the said p…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…ed on seized documents which are capable of several/various interpretations, lacks evidentiary value and is not sufficient enough to fasten tax liability on the assessee. The above views find support from the ratio of the decision in Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 Delhi, in paras 6.4 to 6.13 thereof which are quite elaborate and illuminating on the subject and are therefore reproduced as under:- 6.4. We find that the AO has made out the case for making such addition based exclusively on the said piece of paper found and seized during the course of search. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the said p…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…ed on seized documents which are capable of several/various interpretations, lacks evidentiary value and is not sufficient enough to fasten tax liability on the assessee. The above views find support from the ratio of the decision in Atul Kumar Jain vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 Delhi, in paras 6.4 to 6.13 thereof which are quite elaborate and illuminating on the subject and are therefore reproduced as under:- 6.4. We find that the AO has made out the case for making such addition based exclusively on the said piece of paper found and seized during the course of search. It is, therefore, to be examined whether the said p…

Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…hat the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report read as under: ii) The notings on page no.27…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 455/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…hat the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report read as under: ii) The notings on page no.27…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…hat the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report read as under: ii) The notings on page no.27…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal vs. Shri Neeraj Mandloi, New Delhi

ITA 680/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2009-10

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153Section 153C

…aning thereby that these documents being dumb documents, no addition can be made on the basis of assuming or presuming the notings in those documents relating to any other transaction nor recorded in the documents. " 40. In Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT reported in 64 TTJ 786 (Del) it was held that AO was not justified in deciphering the figures on a seized paper at his whims and caprice based on unfounded ypresumptions and conjectures without bringing any corroborative material evidence in support thereof and same cannot form the basis for assessing undisclosed income by way of sale proceeds of a property. 41. In this…

Cascade Holdings Pvt. Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1414/MUM/2019[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 1992-93 M/S. Cascade Holdings Dcit, Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle 4(3), 32, Madhuli, Vs. Air India Building, Dr. Annie Besant Road, 19Th Floor, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacc5768N (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. & Shri Dharmesh Shah, A.R.

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. &For Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel, D.R
Section 132Section 144Section 234ASection 292CSection 94(4)

…the most be regarded as a dumb document and no addition can be made on the basis of the same. In this regard, reliance is placed upon following decisions; a. N. K. Malhan v. DCIT [91 TTJ 938 (Del Trib)] [Page 199- 208 of PB No. 3] b. Atul Kumar Jain v. DCIT [64 TTJ 786 (Del Trib)] [Page 209-220 of PB No. 3] c. DCIT v. C. Krishna Yadav [12 taxmann.com 4 (Hyd) [Page 221-225 of PB No.3] d. Neeraj Goel v. ACIT [1TA no. 5952- 5956/Del/2017] dated 28.02.2019 [Page 226-235 of PB No.3] e. Suresh Virji Thakkar v. DCIT [ITA No. 5819- 5820/Mum/2017 & 109/Mum/2016] dated 01.10.2018 [Page 236-243 of PB No. 3] f. ACIT v. Shar…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Vadodara vs. M/S. Shree Dhain Auto Transport Corpn., Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1848/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 May 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri/Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-D.R
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he addition on the basis of entry on loose paper was unjustified. ACIT Vs. Shailesh S. Shah 63 ITD 153 (Mum.) - Held that addition cannot be made under substantive provision of the Act without proving the contents of the loose papers. Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del.) where the addition on the basis of uncorroborated chit of paper was found to be unsustainable where the assessing officer had not examined the assessee nor brought any other material to show that the transaction as recorded was actually carried out by the assessee. 3. The submissions of the appellant were remanded to the Assessing Officer f…

JCIT (OSD) Cen Cir 39, Mumbai vs. Krupa Land Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 604/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Oct 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm The Jt. Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Krupa Land Limited Income Tax (Osd), Cc-39 11, B-Wing, Mittal Towers Mumbai Free Press Journal Marg R.No.32(1), Ground Floor Nariman Point Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 021 Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aadck1521E Appellant) .. Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153C

…of notings, jottings cannot be upheld. (iii) The reliance is also placed on the following decisions, wherein it has been held that additions made on dumb entries/ documents without corroborative evidences are not sustainable. a) Atul Kumar Jam v. CIT (1999) 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) b) Rakesh Goyal v. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Delhi) c) Rakesh Kumar lain v. DCIT (2004) 89 TTJ 203 (Delhi) d) N.R.Malhan v. DCIT (2004) 91 TTJ 908 (Delhi) e) Amarjit Singh Baxi v. ACIT (2004) 263 ITR (AT) 75 f) ACIT v. Ashokkumar Vig (2008) 15 SOT 85 (Ranchi) g) MM Financiers v. DCIT (2007) 17 SOT 5 (Chennal) h) Pankaj Dayabhai Patel HUF v.…

Navneet Jhamb, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result appeal of the assessee for AY 2002-03 and 2003-04 is partly allowed

ITA 1608/DEL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 234ASection 43(3)

…t in diamond jewellery on the basis of papers seized when no such diamond jewellery was found. Jaya S.Shetty Vs. ACIT 69 ITD 336 (Mum) Chit of paper neither a document nor a book of account, addition, therefore, could not be sustained. Atul Kumar Jam Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Del): 14 DTC 681 Documents seized during search not being clear as to whether items were payments or receipts or some other calculation, so no addition could be made on the basis of such a dumb documents. Jagdamba Rice Mills Vs. ACIT 67 TTJ 838 (Chd.) The word "Document" u/s 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 means any matter written expressed…