Chuharmal v. CIT

172 ITR 250Supreme Court of India1988#225 most cited

What is Chuharmal v. CIT authority for?

The expression 'income' under Section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has a wide meaning, encompassing anything that comes in or results in gain. Therefore, an assessee's unexplained investments, such as purchasing articles or depositing cash, can legitimately be inferred and deemed as income under this section.

340

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,369 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Chuharmal v. CIT · Section 69A · 172 ITR 250 · 3 SCC 588 · 'income' wide meaning · unexplained investments · deemed income · unexplained money · source of investment · gain

Also reported as

3 SCC 588

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 250Section 148Section 147Section 143(2)Section 115BBE

Issues it is cited on

section 110section 153(a)section 132(4a)section 65bsection 65survey under section 133aviolation of natural justicepanchnamasection 271asection 292cdumb documentssection 250(4)

Judgments citing Chuharmal v. CIT

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. M/S. Gopal Prasad Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/153/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kol vs. Ramakant Beriwala

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/60/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 9 Kolkata vs. M/S Girish Tikmani HUF

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/157/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Pr CIT 9 Kolkata vs. Girish Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/156/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-9, Kolkata vs. Gopal Prasad Tikmani

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/151/2021HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -5, Kolkata vs. Swati Bajaj

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITAT/6/2022HC Calcutta14 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Harshita Chhawchharia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-20

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/3/2021HC Calcutta07 Jun 2022

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

Mangal Annasaheb Jadhav, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmednagar

In the result, Ground No.1 and 2 are dismissed and Ground

ITA 665/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mangal A. Jadhav, The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, M/S.Shah Khandelwal Jain & Vs Ahmednagar. Associates, Level 3, Riverside Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune - 411001. Pan: Ahypj 9285 D Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 09.12.2016For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Fit Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 10,57,073/- Made By The Ao, Doubting The Opening Cash Balance Which Is Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On- Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. No Such Addition Is Warranted In The Case Of The Appellant. The Addition Made By The Ao & Upheld By Cit (A) Be Deleted. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect. 2. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) It Be Held That Addition Of Rs. 60,00,000/- Made By Theao, Doubting The Advances Against Booking Of Flats Received In Cash In Which Were Further Deposited Into Bank & Upheld By Cit(A), Is Merely On Guesswork & Conjectures & Is Improper, Unjustified, Incorrect & Contrary To Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing

…s of proving that he is not the owner, is on the person who affirms that he is not the owner. In other words, if follows from well settled principle of law that normally, unless contrary is established, title always follows possession. Chuharmal vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC). Documentary evidence plays an important part in law. The Courts attach great value for documentary evidence. The Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Paramjit Singh Vs ITO (2010) 323 ITR 588 (P & H) pointed out that oral evidence is not conclusive as against documentary evidence under sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 187…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Therefore by merely suspecting the amount deposited in the bank account during demonetization period could not have been the basis of making the addition under section 69A of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Chuharmal vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills; SC in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the en…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Therefore by merely suspecting the amount deposited in the bank account during demonetization period could not have been the basis of making the addition under section 69A of the Act. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Chuharmal vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills; SC in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) • CIT vs Kamdhenu Steel and Alloys Ltd. 248 CTR 33 (Del.) • Infomediary India (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs CIT 206 Taxman 254 • CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) 6.3 It was stated before the Ld. CIT(A) that the A.O. had not disputed, the en…

DCIT 9(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S B. Chopda Construction P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the appellant is Partly Allowed

ITA 1513/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 1513/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Dcit-9(2)(1) बिधम/ M/S. B. Chopda Construction Room No.665A, 6Th Floor, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, A-208, Sagar Tech Plaza, Churchgate, Mumbai- Sakinaka Junction, Andheri, 400020. Mumbai-400072. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4214G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohan Tandon Revenue By: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -16, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “11. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Suppressed Profit To The Extent Of 12.50% Of Bogus Purchases, When The Assessee Could Not Produce Any Parties Or Evidence That The Said Goods Were Purchased A.Y.2012-13 & The Onus Of Proving Genuineness Of Purchases Was Not Discharged By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Mohan TandonFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147

…s and the onus cannot be said to have influenced the decisions. However, in the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence and hence, onus is a determining factor. 6.2.9 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 90 highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law is not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be guiding principle, since the A0 is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR. 775. The Hon'b…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ts and the onus cannot be said to have influenced the decisions. However, in the instant case, the appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence and hence, onus is a determining factor. 4.7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250/38 Taxman 190 highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by Smt. Kiran Navin Doshi the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills 3…

Shri Jai Hind Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-5(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 146/JPR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.” 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

…le to establish afresh that assessee had in fact concealed the particulars or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This view has been approved by the apex court in Musadilal Ram Bharose 165 ITR 14 SC, CIT-v-K.R.Sadayappan 185 ITR 49 SC and in Chuharmal 172 ITR 250 SC. At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer the latest decision of SC in the case of Dharmendra Textiles (supra) wherein it has been held-(i) the Explanations appended to section 271(1)(c) indicate the element of strict liability,(ii) the object behind the enactment shows that it provides for remedy for loss of revenue,(iii)that penalty…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…y apparent features and the real feature are the manipulated and abnormal price of off-loan and the sudden dip thereafter. Therefore, the CIT (A) holds that the transactions would fall 86 (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 78 of 150 within the realm of suspicious and dubious transaction. The CIT (A) then proceeds to take note of the various other decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal to highlight the importance of reports of the investigating agencies and would point out that it may be true that wh…

DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1298/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…me shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible” 56. It was further submitted that in Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that although rigors of rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to the Income-tax Act, but ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 40 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the general principles of evidence are applicable to income-tax proceedings. Further, reli…

Shri Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1190/JPR/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (PCIT)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153C

…me shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of Section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible” 56. It was further submitted that in Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court pointed out that although rigors of rule of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to the Income-tax Act, but ITA Nos. 1190 & 1298/JP/2019 & 66/JP/2020 40 Sh. Prakash Chand Kothari, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the general principles of evidence are applicable to income-tax proceedings. Further, reli…

Naresh Sharma, Pehowa vs. ITO, W-2, Kurukshetra

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 199/CHANDI/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2021AY 2010-11
For Appellant: None (Adjournment Application of ShriAshwani Kumar, C.A. )For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT

…e Evidence Act are not generally applicable but that does not mean that the Taxing Authorities are prevented from invoking the principles of the Act in the proceedings before them as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chaharmal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 SC, upholding the approach, the Apex Court noted as under: “The Court of Bombay held that what was meant by saying that the Evidence Act did not apply to proceedings under the Act was that the rigour of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act was not applicable but that did not mean that when the taxing authorities were desirous of…

DCIT - 11(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Samanta Organics P. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 3229/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos.3229 To 3231/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12) Dcit-11(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Samanta Organics Pvt. Room No.1, Ground Floor, Ltd. Vs. M. K. Road, Aayakar 194, Arvind Chambers, Off, Bhavan, Mumbai-400020. Western Express Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400069. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs2099B (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22/02/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Different Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2009-10 To 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T. S. Khalsa (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 80G

…vt. Ltd. u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 A.Y.2009-10 appellant has miserably failed to lead evidence and hence, onus is a determining factor. ITA. Nos.3229 to 3231/M/2019 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2011-12 5.2.8 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250/38 Taxman 190 highlighted the fact that the principle of evidence law are not to be ignored by the authorities, but at the same time, human probability has to be the guiding principle, since the AO is not fettered, by technical rules of evidence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR…

The Co-Operative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 1713/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The…

M/S. the Cooperative Company Ltd., Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals are allowed

ITA 4194/DEL/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Sahil Kapoor, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pramita M Biswas, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153C

…“relates to”. But the Legislature, in its wisdom, has given effect to this amendment w.e.f 01.06.2015. Therefore, the same cannot be applied to the assessment years under consideration. 49. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT 172 ITR 250 has held that possession is proof of ownership and the seized documents were found from the possession of Shri R.K. Miglani. 50. As mentioned elsewhere, none of the documents referred to by the Assessing Officer belong to the captioned assessees nor it has been identified that which documents belong to which captioned & ITA No. 1713/Del/ 2012 The…