CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

87 ITR 349Supreme Court of India1973#124 most cited

What is CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull authority for?

The onus to prove that an apparent transaction or explanation is not real lies with the person who claims it to be so. If an assessee provides a plausible explanation for a transaction, the revenue must establish that the apparent transaction is not genuine.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull · 87 ITR 349 · Section 68 · Section 69A · onus of proof · burden of proof · apparent is not real · genuineness of transaction · cash credit · unexplained money · suspicion not evidence · sufficiency of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 148Section 69CSection 133(6)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementdumb documentscreditworthiness of the creditorbogus long term capital gainsection 132(4a)section 292csection 132(4)loose papersaddition under section 68section 10(38)section 127on-money

Judgments citing CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull

Sunita Madhok, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 554/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Oct 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Smt. H. Kabila, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 234BSection 69

…nished proper explanation supported with documents has discharged his burden. In the interest of justice, the additions have to be deleted. ITA Nos.554 & 555/Bang/2018 Page 63 of 64 99. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fact that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to b…

M/S.Asit Dixit, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward2(2), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/JAB/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Oct 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2005-06 Asit Dixit, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward-2(2), Jabalpur (M.P.) Jabalpur [Pan: Aanfm 5798A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Sanjay Seth, Ca Respondent By Sh. S.K. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 07/10/2021

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145(3)

…adjudication by any authority, including the Tribunal, the final fact-finding body, is to be based on, and with reference to, the material on record, is well-settled (viz. CIT v. Radha Kishan Nandlal [1975] 99 ITR 143 (SC); CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)). The said credit has, under the circumstances, been rightly regarded by the Revenue as not proved. (b) Rs.37,00,000/- (Sh. Santosh Jaiswal) The source has, again, been ascribed to the creditors’ capital, withdrawn from another partnership firm, Santosh Jaiswal (Ratlam), also a Jabalpur based liquor dealer. 10 Asit Dixit v. ITO The reason for…

Dy CIT 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varesh Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 262/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 262/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 263/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit-11(3)(1) बिधम/ Varesh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No.427, Aayakar 101, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Industrial Estate, New Link Lines, Mumbai-400020. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1667L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2012-13. Ita. Nos.262 & 263/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait v CIT reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT{(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be ITA. Nos.262 & 263/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2010-11 bogus has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidences, which would directly prove the fact of bogusness or establis…

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(2)(3), Bangalore vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 910/BANG/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri H. Guruswamy, ITP & Shri Ravi Kiran, CAFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 131Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2008-09 The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Ward 3(2)(3), No.290, BEML Layout Cross, 1st Phase, V Stage, Bangalore. Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bangalore – 560 098. PAN: AEJPG 5365D APPELLANT RESPONDENT CO No.51/Bang/2019 [in ITA No.910/Bang/2019] Assessment year : 2008-09 Sri Made Gowda Thibbe Gowda, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bangalore – 560 098. Ward 3(2)(3), PAN: AEJPG 5365D Bangalore. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT / APPELLANT IN APP…

Ashok Kumar Banthia, Bikaner vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Bikaner

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 297/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavashok Kumar Banthia, Vs. D.C.I.T., Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Central Circle, Gangashahar, Bikaner. Bikaner. Pan No. Aixpb 4919 N Assessee By Shri Suresh Ojha, Adv. & Shri Sudarshan Jhabak, Ca. Revenue By Smt. Sanchita Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2021 O R D E R Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv, Jaipur Dated 07/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken By The Assessee: “1. That The Order Passed By The Assessing Authority & Sustained By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Illegal & Against The Law. 2. That The Order Is Illegal In View Of The Fact That The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) As Well As The Assessing Authority Fails To Cross Examine The Deponent Of The Affidavits Submitted Before The Assessing Officer. In View Of Judgment Of Hon’Ble Supreme Court Delivered In The Case Of M/S Mehta Parekha & Co., The Contents Of The Affidavit Should Have Been Accepted. 3. That The Assessment Completed In The Hands Of The Assessee Is Not Justified Because The Amount Belongs To M/S Lux Industries Limited As Admitted By The Director Of The Company. Therefore, The Assessment Is Illegal.

For Appellant: “1. That the
Section 132Section 143(3)

…TC 629 (Raj), ITO Vs Vardhaman Industries 99 TTJ 509 (Jodh ITAT), ACTO Vs Kishore Shyam Brajesh Kumar 93 STC 213 (Raj), Indo Malwa United Mill Limiked Vs State of MP 60 ITR 41 (SC), Late Mangilal Agarwal Vs ACIT 208 CTR 159 (Raj), CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 and Union of India Vs Kamalaxmi Finance Corporation 92 Taxmann 43. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, 19 ITA 297/Jodh/2019 Ashok Kr. Banthia vs DCIT we are of the view that the amount seized from the assessee at the Delhi Air Port belonged to the Lux Industries Limited and not the assessee. The A.O. as well as the ld…

Swarn Gems P Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 473/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 133(6)Section 68

…the assessee has established genuineness of all the transactions, identity of the creditors and the source of the fund received. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) ii) Daulat Ram Rawat Mull 87 ITR 349 (SC) iii) Sarogi Credit Corpn. 103 ITR 344 (Patna) iv) Tola Ram Daga 59 ITR 632 (Asm) v) Suresh Kalmadi 32 TTJ 300 (Pune Tri.) vi) DCIT vs. Anand Prakash Goenka 52 ITD 73 (Cal) vii) ACIT vs. Mohanlal Mishrilal & Sons 52 TTJ 9 (Indore) viii) Labh Chand Bohra vs. ITO 189 Taxman 141 ix) CIT vs. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 x) DCIT vs. Rohini Builders…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…or the Assessee relied on the following decisions : Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 1. Omar Salay Mohammed Salt vs., CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 151 [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 2. [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs., CIT reported in [1959] 3. 37 ITR 271 [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs., Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. 4. Limited in ITA.No.270 of 1999 vide Judgment Dated 07.10.2013. 7.6.18. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1217/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1216/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1215/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1214/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1213/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri. Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1212/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Shri Jitendra Virwani, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1211/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

For Appellant: Shri S. Ramasubramaniam, CAFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayana, Addl.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 6(1)(a)Section 6(1)(c)

…e of search action u/s. 132 of the Act. On this count also, the assessment framed for AYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 cannot be sustained, though notice issued u/s. 153A of the Act is valid. 124. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349(SC) has held as follows:- “A person can still be held to be the owner of a sum of money even though the explanation furnished by him regarding the source of that money is found to be not correct. From the simple fat that the explanation regarding the source of money furnished by A, in whose name the money is lying in deposit, has been found to be…

Jagmohan Kaur Bajwa Legal Heir of Lt.Jaskiran Singh Bajwa, Chandigarh vs. ITO, W-3(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Legal heir of the deceased assessee is allowed

ITA 962/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manveet Singh Sehgal, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 69A

…ates, bank pass book, copy of passport were furnished by the assessee and also a request was made to issue summons under section 131 of the Act, if the A.O. had any doubt. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • Daulat Ram Rawat Mal reported in 87 ITR 349 (SC) • Sarogi Credit Corporation Vs. CIT [1976] 103 ITR 344 (Patna) 6.5 It was further stated that the addition under section 69A of the Act could have been made if unexplained income which was not recorded in the books of account but in the present case amount had been recorded in the book of account and even the source had been explained, theref…

Shri Prince Rai, Damoh vs. Income Tax Officer, Damoh

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

ITA 145/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur22 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Bleassessment Year : 2009-10 Prince Rai, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Ward - Damoh Damoh (M.P.) (M.P.) [Pan: Ahlpr 7469N] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. H.S. Modh, Adv. Respondent By Smt. Swati Agarwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14/07/2021 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…stated, it is shown to be vitiated, or where it is not in agreement with the material on record or is without taking all and only the relevant facts into account. This represents trite law, for which reference may be made to CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC); CIT v. Rayala 4 Prince Rai v. ITO Corporation (P.) Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 883 (Mad). How could the said law apply in the instant case where there has been, on the contrary, proper representation before the AO, who has completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) considering the material on record and the assessee’s explanation/s, not considered by the…

M/S Radhishwari Devlopers P Ltd, Indore vs. Pr CIT -2 Indore, Indore

In the result, Assessee’s appeal in ITANo

ITA 493/IND/2018[13-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Jul 2021

Bench: Hon’Ble Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2013-14 M/S. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known As R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant Pan :Aafcr1916A V/S Pr. Cito-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant By S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue By Shri S.S. Mantri, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 20.07.2021

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING Assessment Year 2013-14 M/s. Radhishwari Developers P. Ltd. (Now Known as R.C. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. ) Indore : Appellant PAN :AAFCR1916A V/s Pr. CITO-2 : Respondent Indore Appellant by S/Shri Sumit Nema Sr. Adv. With Gagan Tiwari & Piyush Parashar Advs. Revenue by Shri S.S. Mantri, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 24.05.2021 Date of Pronouncement 20.07.2021 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, A.M The above captioned appeal f…

Smt. Kempanna Shylaja, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1105/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Shri L.Maheshkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishtra, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 54Section 54FSection 68

…rce of source and origin of origin of the income of the third person need not be proved by the appellant which is a settled position of law as held by various courts:  Aravali Trading Co. v. ITO (2008) 220 CTR 622 (Raj.)  CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)  Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar v. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR (Pat.)  CIT v. Pragathi Co-operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj.)  CIT v. Diamond Products Ltd. (2009) 177 Taxman 331 (Delhi). The appellant submits that the Supreme Court while interpreting the phraseology of Section 68 employs the word `may’ and not `shall’.…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…he get the document registered. 7. What is a apparent is real: The law settled long back that what is apparent is real unless contrary is proved and it is for the person to prove, who says that what is apparent is not real. Kindly refer Daulat Ram Rawat Mal 87 ITR 349 (SC), CIT v/s Bedi & Co. P Ltd 230 ITR 580 (SC) whatsoever in support of his decision that what is apparent is not real. 8. However the ld. AO and CIT(A) have blindly ignored these very vital facts of the case and proceeded on their own guess work, assumption, presumption and suspicion and it is the settled legal position that no addition can be t…

Ninaidevi Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Sangli vs. Income-Tax Officer, (Exemption), Ward, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1787/PUN/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jun 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri B. C. MalakarFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 115BSection 12ASection 2(24)(iia)

…he appellate authority would be justified applying the test of human probabilities and can draw an adverse inference against the assessee. The reference can be made to the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (i) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, 87 ITR 349, (ii) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More, 72 ITR 807 and (iii) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278. In present case, it is highly improbable that an organization can receive donation of identical amount of Rs.4,501/- from total 4851 persons. Therefore, it is fit case to apply the test of human probabilities. No pleadings were made before us as to how it was…