What is CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni authority for?

An admission made in a statement during search proceedings under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act is not considered conclusive proof. Such admissions require corroboration by other independent incriminating material for making additions to income.

How many judgments cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni?

63 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (291 ITR 172), spanning 2017 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 271(1)(c), Section 132(4).

CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (291 ITR 172)

Kohinoor Crafts, Moradabad vs. ACIT Central Circle, Moradabad

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

ITA 9556/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2017-18 Kohinoor Crafts, Vs. Acit, Turki Estate, Kohinoor Tiraha, Central Circle, Sambhal Road, Moradabad. Moradabad. Pan: Aadfk7275N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mayank Patawari, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.09.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mayank Patawari, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 69C

…com 215; (vi) Bhagirath Aggarwal vs. CIT, 31 taxmann.com 274, 351 ITR 143 (Del); (vii) Raj Hans Towers (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, 373 ITR 9; (viii) Smt. Dayawanti vs. CIT, 75 Taxmann.com 308; (ix) Rakesh Mahajan vs. CIT, 214 CTR 218; (x) CIT v. Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291 ITR 172; (xi) Ravi Mathur & Others (DB Appeal No.67/2002 & Others – Rajasthan High Court); (xii) Pr. CIT vs. Avinash Kumar Setai (ITA 935/2016 dated 01.05.2017); (xiii) Kanti Lal Parbhu Das Patel vs. DCIT (2005) 93 ITD 117 (Indore); (xiv) Dr. SC Gupta vs. CIT (2001) ITR 782 (All); (xv) Kantilal C. Shah vs. ACIT (2011) 133 ITD 57 (Ahd); & (xvi) ACIT vs. H…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 292C

…sessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax- world 454 (ITAT JP) (vi) Shri Pawan Lashkary ITA No 808/JP/2011…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)

Section 292C

…sessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) Chitra Devi v/s ACIT (2002) 28 Tax- world 454 (ITAT JP) (vi) Shri Pawan Lashkary ITA No 808/JP/2011…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 289/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. (ii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except state…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 288/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 287/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Nitin Kedia, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 286/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…

Nitin Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 128/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. (ii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except state…

M/S. Kedia Real Estate LLP, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas appeals of the assessee are allowed in part

ITA 127/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…91 ITR 18 (SC) has held that admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. (ii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) has held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. (iii) Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except state…

Shri Nirmak Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 126/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 125/JPR/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…

Shri Nirmal Kumar Kedia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed whereas the appeals of the assessee are allowed in part in terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 124/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Jun 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (FCA) &For Respondent: Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT-DR)

Section 131Section 132Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 19

…n extremely important piece of evidence but it can’t be said that it is conclusive. It is upon to the assessee to show that it is incorrect. Further reliance may be placed on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.) wherein it was held that admission in statement during search is not conclusive proof of fact and can always be explained. 91. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL (96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under: Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - W…