Bansidhar Onkarmall v. CIT

23 ITR 353High Court1953#8335 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2024.

Judgments citing Bansidhar Onkarmall v. CIT

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…which a reasonable inference of income having been earned during the accounting year could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material, however slight, is on the Income-tax authorities not on the assessee - Banshidhar Onkarmall Vs CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori). “It is certainly not a leap in the dark. The Assessing Officer is not entitled to make a guess without evidence" CIT Vs Kameshwar Singh, (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC); Seth Nathuram Munnalal Vs CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag). 1.19 Further, an assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise' or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material…

D.C.I.T., CC - 2(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. EKO DIAGNOSTIC PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 159/KOL/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tulsyan, A/RFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 250Section 37(1)

…jectures is not sustainable in the eye of law in view of the following judicial pronouncements: 1. ITO Vs. Shyamal Dey (ITA No.41Q/Kol/2012) (Kolkata IT AT) 2. BrijBhushan Lai Parduman Kum&Vs. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC) 3. Banshidhar Onkarmall Vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orisssa) 4. CIT Vs. Kameshwar Singh (1933) 1 1TR 94 (PC) 5. Dhirajlal Giridharilal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 6. Pioneer Himudyog Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA No.338/Kol/2017 order dated 23.08.2017) 7. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Appellant further submits that it had also incurred similar expenditure in some of the ot…

THE ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL vs. M/S MOENUS TEXTILE PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year: 2009-10 DCIT 1(1) Bhopal PAN:AAECM5482F : Appellant V/s M/s. Moenus Textile Private Ltd. Raisen : Respondent Revenue by Shri Harshit Bari, AR Respondent by Shri S.S. Deshpande, CA Date of Hearing 28.09.2021 Date of Pronouncement 30.11. 2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M.: The above captioned appeal filed at the instance of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2009-10 is directed against the orde…

ITO 26 (2)(5), MUMBAI vs. PRATISHNA ENGINEERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4899/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

…is from which a reasonable inference of any expenditure being of the disallowable nature could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material is on the AO as held by Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of Bansidhar Onkarmall vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). The AO has, in the case of the appellant, made the disallowance without any substantial and irrefutable material. 7.3.12 To summarize, it is observed that the purchases are supported by proper invoices duly reflected in the books of accounts, (A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2010-11) M/s. Pratishna Engineers the payments have been madeby account payee c…

ACIT-26(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S PRATISHNA ENGINEERS, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1947/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Department by Ms. Shreekala Pardeshi

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147

CHANDRA PRAKASH AGRAWAL HUF,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 924/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Jan 2021AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Amrish Baidi (CIT)

Section 132

…nference of income having been earned/investment made during the accounting year could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material, however, slight, is on the income tax authorities and not on the assessee (Bansidhar Onkarmall v. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 353. 361 (Orissa). 15. It was accordingly submitted that loan of Rs. 25.00 lacs made to Columbus Overseas LLP was advanced by the assessee on 14/08/2015 through regular banking channel. The assessee has duly recorded interest receivable on such loan in the books of accounts and offered the same for taxation. The interest income was received in the re…

SHRI SAYYED HAMID ALI,UJJAIN vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE 2(1), UJJAIN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ust be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment U/s 143(3). Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd~ V. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65: (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC) An Assessment based on mere presumption is unsustainable in law. Banshidar Onkarmal vs. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori). Surrounding circumstances must be considered while scrutinizing document 82 ITR 540 Hon'ble Supreme Court- CIT vs. Durgaprasad Mure. 29. Per contra Ld. Department Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orders of both lower authorities. 30. We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. Ld. AO after…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…1 & 4198/Mum/2007 & CO-261/Mum/2007 Shri Suresh V. Jain f) GopiNathAgarwala v. CIT (1955) 28 ITR 753 (All) g) United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (MP). h) CIT v. R. Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj.) i) BanshidharOnkarmall v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). j) CIT v. Kameshwar Singh (1933) 1 ITR 94. k) Seth NathuramMunnalal v. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) the H'ble Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. Ther…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

…s and conjecture and reliance, in this regard, was placed on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the assessment stage but also at the appellate stage. The Assessin…

ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. AAA TECHNOLOGIES P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M

Section 143(3)Section 148

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. PHONEIX FOILS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4385/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Sh. N. K. Pradhan, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 4385/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12)

For Appellant: Shri Abi Rama KarthikeyanFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain, AR

Section 143(3)Section 148

…erial from which a reasonable inference of any expenditure being of the disallowable nature could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material is on the AO as held by Hon'ble High Court Orissa in the case of Bansidhar Onkarmall Vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353(Orissa) where it observed as under :- There was no doubt that the view taken by the income- tax authorities bases on the alleged presumption was erroneous in law. "Past history" may be legitimate material, but that is not sufficient by itself without more, to justify assessment in a particular year. There must be some material relatable to the ac…

DCIT 4(3)(2), MUMBAI vs. SUNRISE METALLIC (INDIA) P.LD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3628/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Dcit 4(3)(2) Vs. M/S. Sunrise Metallic R.No.649, 6Th Floor (India) Pvt. Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan Shiva Industrial Estate, Mumbai – 400 020 Near Tata Power House Lake Road, Bhandup (W) Mumbai – 400 078 Pan/Gir No.Aajcs2965E Appellant) Respondent) ..

Section 147

…erial from which a reasonable inference of any expenditure being of the disallowable nature could be drawn and that the initial burden of finding such material is on the AO as held by Hon'ble High Court Orissa in the case of Bansidhar Onkarmall Vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353(Ori$sa) where it observed as under :- There was no doubt that the view taken by the income-tax authorities bases on the alleged presumption was erroneous in law. "Past history" may be legitimate material, but that is not sufficient by itself without more, to justify assessment in a particular year. There must be some material relatable to the acco…

FIRDOSH NOSHIR ANKLESARIA,MUMBAI vs. ITO 17(2)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, these appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 5490/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2009-10 Firdosh Noshir Anklesaria Ito 17(2)(4) 5 Gr Floor, Kaka Bldg, Piramal Chambers, बनाम/ 649 Firdoshi Rd. Dadar R.No. 220 4Th Floor, Vs. Mumbai-400014 Lalbaug, Mumbai-40013 (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.Aaapa6428N Appellant By Shri Neel Khandelwal (Ar) Revenue By Shri A.K. Dhondial (Dr)

Section 133(6)

…m which reasonable inference of the income having been earned during the accounting year could be drawn and that initial burden of finding such material, however slight, is on the Income. Tax Authorities and not on the Appellant (Banshidhar Onkarmall V/s. CIT 23 ITR 353, 361-Orissa). An assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law. d) Even presuming (without admitting) "Mihir" might have carried out certain accommodatory entries with certain persons but it does not establish that it had provided accommodatory ent…