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 366,339 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

Gajendra Mohanty, Malkangiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Jeypore Ward, Jeypore

In the result, the appeal filed for AY 2017-18 is partly allowed and the appeal filed for AY 2018-19 is dismissed

ITA 160/CTK/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144Section 250Section 3Section 69A

…no applicability in the determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the observation made by Ld. AO. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, 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 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

Pyarelal Shaw, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-25(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2687/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 69A

…re and source of cash deposited during the demonetisation period and it was conveyed to the assessee that this was the final opportunity. The assessee did not furnish any reply and therefore, the Ld. THE LD. AO, relying upon the case of Chuharmal v CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt Srilekha Banerjee and others v CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697 dated 27/03/1963, wherein it is held that where the assessee was unable to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it was held that the assessee started u…

Yazdin Jimmy Mistry, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 42(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1525/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainyazdin Jimmy Mistry Vs. Ito, Ward – 42(3)(2) 2/7, Rustom Baug, Sant Room No. 609, 6Th Savta Marg, Byculla, Floor, Kautilya Mumbai – 400027. Bhawan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Bkc, Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Agapm9097K (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 131Section 250Section 3Section 44ASection 69A

…of the Act by the revenue authorities is not against the provision of law. In this regard reliance is being placed upon the decisions in the case of …….. 4 Yazdin Jimmy Mistry, Mumbai “5.5.4 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 while affirming the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that 'the expression 'INCOME' as used in Section 69A of the Act, 1961 had a wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in gain and on this basis, concluded that the assessee had income which he had invested in purchasing article and he could be held to be owner an…

Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Valsad vs. Income Tax Officer- Ward (5), Valsad

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

ITA 819/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.819/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Mahmad Atik Farukmiya Sheikh, Vs. The Ito, Masjid Faliya Dehali, Dhagadmal, Ward – 5, Valsad - 396126 Valsad "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Duaps5433Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/04/2025

Section 115BSection 253(3)Section 69A

…sessee was found owner of the money but he has not offered any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such money found in its bank accounts. The AO relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of (i) Chuharmal vs. CIT, (1988) 172 ITR 250 and Smt. Srilekha Banerjee & Ors., reported in 1964 AIR 697. The AO found that the sources of cash deposited in the bank account were neither explained nor offered for taxation. The onus was on the assessee to prove that the cash deposits made did not bear the character of income. The AO concluded that the assessee has not filed any submission /…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Ajay Bakliwal, Kota

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed in

ITA 1413/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1413/JP/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2018-19 ACIT, Central Circle, Kota बनाम Vs. Ajay Bakliwal C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Bari, Kota स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearin

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1413/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2018-19 cuke ACIT, Ajay Bakliwal Vs. Central Circle, C 6 Vallabh Bari, Vallabh Kota Bari, Kota LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABZPB 7775 P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Rajendra Sisodia, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. An…

Prakash R Mehta (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 3969/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 69A

…ender company/firm and genuineness of the transactions. 7 ITA No. 3969/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2012-13 Prakash R Mehta (HUF) xv) This appellate authority puts the reliance on the following Judgments a. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 while affirming the view of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that 'the expression 'INCOME' as used in Section 69A of the Act, 1961 had a wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in gain and on this basis, concluded that the assessee had income which he had invested in purchasing article and he could be held to be owner an…

Sushila Devi Ladiwala, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-6 (2), Jaipur, Rajasthan

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

ITA 1435/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Mrs. Uma, Adv. ( Th. V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT-DR a
Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69A

…ections 69A of the IT Act. The genuineness of transactions could not be proved to the satisfaction of the AO during the assessment proceedings. 5.5 The AO has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250 as well as the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt Srilekha Banerjee and others Vs CIT, Bihar & Orissa, reported in 1964 AIR 697, dated 27/03/1963. I find that the same are clearly applicable to the facts of the case. 5.6 Based on the facts mentioned above, detailed discussion in the assessment order by the AO and in the abs…

Pankaj Mani Kulshreshtha, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 19/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Vikash Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT a
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to explain the source of the unexplained investment, and if the explanation is not satisfactory, the amount can be treated as income. Further relying of decision in case of Chuharmal Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1988) 3 SCC 588 as under; The onus of proving the source of deposit primarily rests on the person in whose name the deposit appears in various banks. In the circumstances, the department was right in making individual assessments in the hands of assessee in question. Similarly, the revenue was right in making the individual assessments in the names of other assess…

Lalita Dheeraj Junghare, Nagpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

ITA 360/NAG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.360/Nag./2024 (Assessment Year : 2020–21) Lalita Dheeraj Junghare B–403, Green City Officers Society ……………. Appellant Katol Road, Aakar Nagar, Nagpur 440 013 PAN – ADLPJ2897A v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Kapil Hirani Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 12/02/2025 Date of Order – 21/03/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal preferred by the assessee is emanating from impugned order dated 22/0…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3152/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…s the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We further find that the Evidence Act would apply to income tax proceedings, but not the rules of evidence as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal v CIT reported in 172 ITR 250. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of the section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case under consideration invalidates the AO’s reliance on the print out of the excel sheets taken out of computer of the AGM of assessee company. 16. We further find that the assessing officer has relied upon the impounded material obtained dur…

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3151/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…s the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We further find that the Evidence Act would apply to income tax proceedings, but not the rules of evidence as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal v CIT reported in 172 ITR 250. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of the section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case under consideration invalidates the AO’s reliance on the print out of the excel sheets taken out of computer of the AGM of assessee company. 16. We further find that the assessing officer has relied upon the impounded material obtained dur…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3150/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…s the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We further find that the Evidence Act would apply to income tax proceedings, but not the rules of evidence as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal v CIT reported in 172 ITR 250. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of the section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case under consideration invalidates the AO’s reliance on the print out of the excel sheets taken out of computer of the AGM of assessee company. 16. We further find that the assessing officer has relied upon the impounded material obtained dur…

Foundation One Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3149/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…s the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We further find that the Evidence Act would apply to income tax proceedings, but not the rules of evidence as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal v CIT reported in 172 ITR 250. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of the section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case under consideration invalidates the AO’s reliance on the print out of the excel sheets taken out of computer of the AGM of assessee company. 16. We further find that the assessing officer has relied upon the impounded material obtained dur…

Foundation One Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 3148/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3148 To 3152/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2017-18 Foundation One Infrastructures Assistant Commissioner Of Private Limited, Vs. Income Tax, 4/3, G.D.Street, Race Course, Central Circle-1 Coimbatore-641 018. Coimbatore. Pan: Aabcf-1701-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.A.Suraj Nahar, C.A ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per George George K: These Appeals At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Five Separate Orders Of Cit(A), Chennai-20, (All Dated 30.09.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2013-14 To 2017-18. 2. There Is A Delay Of 11 Days In Filing These Appeals. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay Along With Ita Nos. 3148 To 3152//Chny/2024 Affidavit Stating Therein The Reasons For Belated Filing Of These Appeals. The Reasons Stated In The Condonation Application For Belated Filing Of These Appeals Is That Managing Director Of The Assessee Was Stranded Amidst Heavy Rains Caused By Cyclone Fengal At Puducherry During The Relevant Period & Hence, There Was Delay Of 11 Days.

For Appellant: Mr. T.Banusekar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 115BSection 131Section 133ASection 250Section 28

…s the requirements set out in section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. We further find that the Evidence Act would apply to income tax proceedings, but not the rules of evidence as held by the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal v CIT reported in 172 ITR 250. Thus, non-compliance with the provisions of the section 65B[4] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the case under consideration invalidates the AO’s reliance on the print out of the excel sheets taken out of computer of the AGM of assessee company. 16. We further find that the assessing officer has relied upon the impounded material obtained dur…

Rahul Jabarmal Jain, Mumbai vs. Assistant. Commissioner of Income Tax -19(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 3525/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanrahul Jabarmal Jain Vs. Acit 19(3) 1204/B 12 Floor, Pratiksha Tower, R. 5Th Floor, Piramal Chamber, S. Nimkar Marg, Mumbai Central, Lalbaug, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 008 Pan: Aempj8236K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 37

…no applicability in determination of matters under taxing statutes. In the present case, it is clear that apparent is not the real as evidenced from the observation made by the Ld AO. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Chuhar Mal V CIT (1988) 172 ITR 250, 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 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v CIT (1954) 261 TR 775. The Hon'ble…

Nitin Gopinath Bhoir, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 17(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms

ITA 5717/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 50CSection 54F

…l was right in holding that the penalty cannot be imposed with reference to addition of deemed income under Section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Mr.Vimal Gupta relies upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250/38 Taxman 190 (SC). 2. Upon perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal in its entirety and noting the peculiar facts pertaining to the Assessee we are of the view that the question as posed before us and the contentions advanced need not be gone into in any further details. The admitted factual position and which the Tribunal noted is prevailing…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

ITA 702/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” ायपीठ चेई म। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय ी मनोज कु मार अवाल ,लेखा सद# एवं माननीय ी मनु कु मार िग&र, ाियक सद# के सम'। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.699/…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 700/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद# एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग&र, "ाियक सद# के सम'। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.699/Chny/…

DCIT Central Circle 2(1), Chenai vs. C.Vijaya Baskar, Pudukottai

In the result, ITA Nos.695 to 702/Chny/2023 stands dismissed

ITA 697/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.699/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 6. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.700/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 7. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.701/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 8. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.702/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Dcit Shri C. Vijayabaskar बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1) #14/28-1, Sowrastra Street, Chennai. Illupur, Pudukottai-622 102. Vs.

For Appellant: S/Shri Nithyaesh Natraj, Vaibav R. VenkateshFor Respondent: Shri A.P. Srinivas (Sr. Standing Counsel for department)- Ld. Sr. Counsel
Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल ,लेखा सद# एवं माननीय "ी मनु कुमार िग&र, "ाियक सद# के सम'। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM 1. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.695/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.696/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 3. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.697/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.698/Chny/2023 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & 5. आयकरअपील सं. / ITA No.699/Chny/…

Kalamandir Jewellers Limited, Surat vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1012/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1012/Srt/2024

Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 270A(9)Section 37

…uring appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) observed that the onus was on the appellant to prove the source of funds and the appellant did not provide any reasonable explanation and evidence. The CIT(A) relied on the decisions in case of Chuharmal vs. CIT, (1988) 172 ITR 250 (MP HC) and Manindranath Das vs. CIT and upheld the addition made by AO and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorised Representative (Id. AR) of the assessee submitted a paper book containing copies of ITR and computation for AY.2018- 19, auditors r…