Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Lid v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa

27 ITR 602High Court1955#11403 most cited
9

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 341,001 Indian tax judgments — from 2020 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 119Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153DSection 246ASection 250

Issues it is cited on

addition under section 68section 115bbsection 115bsection 69cundisclosed incomeunexplained moneysection 115bbesection 69asection 69section 115section 11section 68

Judgments citing Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Lid v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 333/CTK/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 332/CTK/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack03 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.332 & 333/Ctk/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Msl Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan No. : Aajcm 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri D.Parida, Ca & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Adv राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 3 /12/2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 3 /12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Dated 31.3.2025 Passed By Ld Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2 In Appeal No.Cit(A), Bhubaneswar-2/11252/2017-18 For The Assessment Years 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. 2. Shri D.Parida & Shri Chitrasen Parida, Ld Ars Appeared For The Assessee & Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, Ld Cit Dr Appeared For The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld Ar That The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Reads As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri ChitrasenFor Respondent: Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, ld CIT
Section 132Section 153ASection 246ASection 250Section 69

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कटक "यायपीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK (THROUGH VIRTUAL HEARING) "ी जाज" माथन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य के सम" । BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं/ITA Nos.332 & 333/CTK/2025 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) MSL Fish Traders Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Central Circle-2, Rooom No.14, Fish Market, Unit-4, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. PAN No. : AAJCM 1080 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee by : Shri D.Parida, CA and Shri Chitras…

ACIT, Range-1, Lucknow vs. Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 431/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…e Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 68-73/2021, order dated 19.01.2022. 16 Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC). 17 Laxmi Rice Mills vs. CIT, 97 ITR 258 (Patna). 18 Chunnilal Tikam Chand Coal Co. Ltd., 27 ITR 602 (Patna). 19 Atish Singla vs. ITO Ward 43(7) in ITA No. 1185/Del/2021, order dated 06.04.2022, ITAT, Delhi. 20 Yash Ornaments (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.353/LKW/2020, order dated 23.07.2024, ITAT, Lucknow. 21 Harisons Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1426/Del/2021, order dated 23.02.2024, ITAT, Delhi. 22 DCIT vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. i…

M/S. Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow vs. The DCIT/ACIT-4, Lucknow

In the result, Departmental appeal bearing

ITA 351/LKW/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. V. The Dcit/Acit-4 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Lucknow Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Theacit-1 V. M/S Motor Fab Sales Pvt. Ltd. Lucknow 11, Mahatma Gandhi Marg Hazratganj, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaccm5754E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Revenue By: Shri H.S. Usmani, Cit(Dr)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.S. Usmani, CIT(DR)
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68

…e Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 68-73/2021, order dated 19.01.2022. 16 Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC). 17 Laxmi Rice Mills vs. CIT, 97 ITR 258 (Patna). 18 Chunnilal Tikam Chand Coal Co. Ltd., 27 ITR 602 (Patna). 19 Atish Singla vs. ITO Ward 43(7) in ITA No. 1185/Del/2021, order dated 06.04.2022, ITAT, Delhi. 20 Yash Ornaments (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.353/LKW/2020, order dated 23.07.2024, ITAT, Lucknow. 21 Harisons Diamond Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT in ITA No.1426/Del/2021, order dated 23.02.2024, ITAT, Delhi. 22 DCIT vs. Bawa Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. i…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…under High Denomination Notes could not be treated as income from undisclosed sources just because it was not mentioned in books that cash balance consisted of High Denomination Notes, as upheld in the case law of ChunilalTikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. v.CIT (1955) 27 ITR 602 (Pat). Page No. | 12 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO h) Addition on the basis of suspicion, presumption and surmises: 1. The Assessing Officer erred in adding 12,66,500 u/s 69A r.w.s 11588E only on the basis of suspicion, presumption and surmises. Addition u/s 68 to 69D without corroborative evidence and linkage of the assessee will fall in the domain of s…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ould not, by applying a rule of thumb discard it so far as the rest were concerned and act on mere surmise. In arriving at its decision this Court referred to the case of Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (1955) 27 ITR 602 (SC): TC42R.740 and stated that the case before it should also have been similarly decided by the High Court in favour of the assessee. 13 ITA 11/Chny/2021 & CO 6/Chny/2022 M/s. M. C. Hospital AY 2017-18 22. A decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in in Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Incometax, (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All) may also be…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…of grounds or on mere suspicion or on section 44AD and 44AE but these sections irrelevant grounds as has been held by do not apply to the assessee as that total following cases: turnover of the assessee during the year under consideration exceeds Rs. 40.00 i) 27 ITR 602 (Pat0 Chunnilal Tikaamchand Coal Co. lakhs. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ltd. vs. CIT the additional evidence furnished by the ii) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT assessee under Rule 46A is devoid of merit, iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram vs. suffers from factual inaccuracies and is not CIT fit to be evidence in t…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…that an explanation by an assessee, which is prima facie reasonable, cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicion or on irrelevant grounds. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Chunnilal Tikaamchand Coal Ltd. vs. CIT 27 ITR 602 (Pat) ii) Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) iii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) iv) Sri Ram Tandon vs. CIT 42 ITR 689 (All) The Ld. AR submitted that in absence of maintenance of books of accounts no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account. The Ld. AR further submitted that wh…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…(I) ITCL 511 (Del-HC) : (2011) 202 Taxman 548 (Del). 34. Heirs & ORs of Late Laxmanbhai S. Patel v. CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 206 (Guj) : (2009) 222 CTR (Guj) 138. 35. R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Chunilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 602 (Pat), Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All) and Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)]. 36. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)]. 37. ITO v. Sure…

Chunilal Ticamchand Coal Co. Lid v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar and Orissa (27 ITR 602) — Cited in 9 Judgments | BharatTax