CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

299 ITR 179High Court2008#1299 most cited

What is CIT v. Anupam Kapoor authority for?

Strong suspicion, no matter how compelling, cannot take the place of concrete evidence when making tax assessments, and additions to income cannot be sustained solely on that basis.

87

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Anupam Kapoor · 299 ITR 179 · suspicion vs evidence · income tax assessment · burden of proof · section 68 · cash credits · bogus long term capital gain · mere suspicion · section 143(3) · section 147

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. Anupam Kapoor

Shri Kuldeep Kumar, Bikaner vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bikaner

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

ITA 221/JODH/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur10 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2010-11 Sh. Kuldeep Kumar S/O Ram Income Tax Officer, Swaroop, Chak-13 Kyd Vs Ward-1(4), Bikaner Khajuwala, Bikaner-3334023 Pan: Brkpk2021B Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Sh. Suresh Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 10.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac) Under Section 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S. 143(3) Of The Act Dated 21.11.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- 1. The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal Against The Law & Without Any Application Of Mind, Therefore, Is Liable For Quash. Sh. Kuldeep Kumar

Section 147Section 148Section 250

…case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros Co Vs CIT 37 ITR 271 has held that the surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion are the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anupam Kapoor (2008) 299 ITR 179 (P &H) also held that suspicion, howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal proof. Honorable, please also look into the working style of the Income Tax Commissioner Appeal, is nothing but pushing the assessee in the litigation.” Submission of ld. DR 4. Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. The ld. DR submitted that the aff…