Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited

61 Taxmann.com 52Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2015#6699 most cited

What is Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited authority for?

An addition made based on a disclosure in a statement recorded under section 132(4) cannot be sustained if the assessee retracts the statement and the Revenue fails to provide corroborating evidence.

17

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar · Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited · section 132(4) · retracted statement · section 132 · addition based on statement · onus of proof · dumb documents · search and seizure · corroborating evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 115BBE of Income Tax ActSection 132 of Income Tax ActSection 132(4) of Income Tax ActSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

Issues it is cited on

section 134section 10(2a)onus of proofretracted statementdumb documentssection 34loose papersdocuments seizedsection 132(4)unexplained investmentsection 69csection 131

Judgments citing Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited

Jap Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, 10 (2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 7228/MUM/2025[2010 - 11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjap Overseas Private Vs. Ito Ward, 10(2)(1) Limited Room No. 573, Aayakar Bhawan, B-102, Twinkle Maharishi Karve Road, New Marine Lines, Apartments, New Link Mumbai-400020. Road, Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. Pan/Gir No: Aaacj1573C (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69C

…monies from his bank account (in case of losses). 10. For the above proposition, we rely upon the decision in the case of MA. Sambhavanath Investment ACIT LT.A. No.3109/Mum/2011 ΑΥ 2006- 2007 dated 19/12/2013 (Mum) (Trib), ACIT Kunvarji Finance (P) Lad (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52(Ahd.) (Trib) wherein it was held that CCM within 1% is absolutely normal. Accordingly the addition was deleted. In the facts of the present case also, CCM is within 1%, ITO vs. Pat ITA No.7228/MUM/2025/AY 2010-11 JAP Overseas Private Limited Commodity Services P. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3498 and 3499/Mum/2012 dt. 7th Aug,2015 (Mum.) (Trib.), DCITv…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur vs. M/S. Chhatisgarh Distilleries Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

ITA 103/RPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.103/Rpr/2020 Co No.15/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1, Raipur (C.G.)

For Appellant: Shri S.R Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Ld. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69C

…under :- We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj) Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm-Trib.) CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj) wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s.132(4) it cannot be sustained despite retraction when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore we are unable to uphol…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 309/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. Page 31 of 64 Shri Sharad Sharma IT(SS)A Nos. 29 & 32/Ind/2023 and ITA Nos. 309 & 304/Ind/2023- A.Y.2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

DCIT Central, Bhopal vs. Sharad Sharma, Bhopal

ITA 304/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniit(Ss)A No. 29/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2010-11) It(Ss)A No. 32/Ind/2023 (Ay: 2015-16) Shri Sharad Sharma, Acit, Central, बनाम/ H-3B, Nishant Colony, Gwalior Vs. 74 Bunglows, (Stationed At Bhopal) Tt Nagar, Bhopal (Pan: Amzps9791D) (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. Page 31 of 64 Shri Sharad Sharma IT(SS)A Nos. 29 & 32/Ind/2023 and ITA Nos. 309 & 304/Ind/2023- A.Y.2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

Dy. CIT, Central Circle, Varanasi vs. Shri Ashok Agrawal, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 23/VNS/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Bleshri Ashok Agrawal, Dy.Cit Central Circle, J-12/120, Dhoopchandi, Varanasi Jagatganj, Varanasi 221001

For Appellant: Shri V K Jindal & Sh Ashish JindalFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132(4)

…der:- "We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj). Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm. Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Varanasi vs. Dc/ACIT, CC, Varanasi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 52/VNS/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi21 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shukla, Hon’Bleshri Ashok Agrawal, Dy.Cit Central Circle, J-12/120, Dhoopchandi, Varanasi Jagatganj, Varanasi 221001

For Appellant: Shri V K Jindal & Sh Ashish JindalFor Respondent: Shri Robin Chaudhary, CIT
Section 132(4)

…der:- "We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj). Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm. Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH: DB: INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2012-13 The ACIT (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, MP-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, vs. Bhopal, MP-452016 PAN ADHPA8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, CA Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, CA Date of Hearing : 22.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 09.05.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed agains…

The ACIT Central -1, Bhopal vs. Shri Sunil Sahu, Raipur

ITA 355/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…der :- We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case o/CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm,-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 158/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…der :- We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case o/CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm,-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 157/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…der :- We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case o/CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm,-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

Sunil Sahu, Raipur vs. ACIT(Central)-2, Bhopal

ITA 156/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…der :- We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case o/CIT v. Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm,-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Futurz Next Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3556/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 142Section 153A

…from his bank account (in case of losses). 10. For the above proposition, we rely upon the decision in the case of M/s Sambhavanath Investment v. ACIT I.T.A. No.3109/Mum/2011 AY 2006- 2007 dated 19/12/2013 (Mum.)(Trib.), ACIT v Kunvarji Finance (P) Ltd (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52(Ahd.)(Trib.) wherein it was held that CCM within 1 % is absolutely normal. Accordingly the addition was deleted. In the facts of the present case also, CCM is within 1 %, ITO vs. Pat Commodity Services P. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3498 and 3499/Mum/2012 dt. 7th Aug,2015 (Mum.)(Trib.), DCIT v Sunil J Anandpara ITA No. 3132/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2010…

DCIT, CC- 8(1), Mumbai vs. Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue in the case of Nirshilp securities Pvt Ltd in ITA No

ITA 6319/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jun 2021AY 2009-10
Section 143(3)Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & DCIT-CC-8(1) Vs. M/s.Nirshilp Securities Pvt. Ltd., Room No.656, 6th Floor 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhagwati House-A-19 M.K.Road, Mumbai Veera Desai Road Maharashtra-400 020 Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058 Maharashtra PAN/GIR No.AABCN4361M (Appellant) .. (Respondent) DCIT-CC-8(1) Vs. M/s.Dolat Investment Ltd., Room No.656, 6th Floor 301-308, 3rd Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Bhagwati House-A-19 M.K.Road, Mumbai Veera Desai Road Maharashtra-400 020 Andheri (W) Mumbai – 400 058…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Jaypee Financial Services Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4266/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. K. Pandaand. Sh. Kuldip Singhassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit Vs. M/S. Jaypee Financial Central Circle- 29 Services Limited New Delhi Fa-45, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi-110027 Pan No.Aaacj2992B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142Section 153A

…from his bank account (in case of losses). For the above proposition, we rely upon the decision in the case of M/s.Sambhavanath 10. Investment v. ACIT I.T.A. No.3109/Mum/2011 AY 2006-2007 dated 19/12/2013 (Mum.)(Trib.), ACIT v Kunvarji Finance (P) Ltd (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52(Ahd.)(Trib.) wherein it was held that CCM within 1 % is absolutely normal. Accordingly the addition was deleted. In the facts of the present case also, CCM is within 1 %, ITO vs. Pat Commodity Services P. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3498 and 3499/Mum/2012 dt. 7th Aug,2015 (Mum.)(Trib.), DCIT v Sunil J Anandpara ITA No. 3132/MUM/2015 Assessment Year: 2010…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai vs. Comet Investments P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5689/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: Shri. Dr. K. Shivram/Shri. RahulFor Respondent: Shri. Abhiram Karnikeya

…ontrary, the transactions of the assessee with RSBL who in turn has transacted with MCX are supported by various contract notes." The ratios of the above decisions clearly applies to the facts of the present case. ii) In ACIT v Kunvarji Finance (P) Ltd (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52(Ahd)(Trib) it is held that CCM within 1 % is absolutely normal. Accordingly the addition was deleted. In the facts of the present case also, CCM is within 1 %. (iii) In ITO vs. Pat Commodity Services P. Ltd. ITA Nos. 3498 and 3499/Mum/2012 dt. 7th Aug, 2015 (Mum)(Trib). Which decision pertains to a broker, it was held that CCM is not illega…

Shri Yogesh Hotwani, Mandsaur vs. The DCIT (Central), Indore

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

ITA 680/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

…se of CIT vs. Chandra Kumar I.T.(SS)A.Nos. 91 – 94 & I.T.A.No. 274/Ind/2016 and 117 to 120 and I.T.A.No. 680/Ind/2016 – ACIT v. Yogesh Hotwani and Yogesh Hotwani Vs. DCIT page 64 of 72 Jethmal Kochar, 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Kunwarjeet Finance Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.Tri), Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable to upho…

The ACIT-Central-2, Indore vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani, Mandsaur

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

ITA 674/IND/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia & Shri O.P. Meena

…se of CIT vs. Chandra Kumar I.T.(SS)A.Nos. 91 – 94 & I.T.A.No. 274/Ind/2016 and 117 to 120 and I.T.A.No. 680/Ind/2016 – ACIT v. Yogesh Hotwani and Yogesh Hotwani Vs. DCIT page 64 of 72 Jethmal Kochar, 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Kunwarjeet Finance Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.Tri), Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable to upho…

Chandra Kumar Jethmal Kochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited (61 Taxmann.com 52) — Cited in 17 Judgments | BharatTax