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 366,470 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

ACIT 19(2), Mumbai vs. Lekhraj H Doshi, Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4502/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ ए, मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “A”, MUMBAI "ी जोिग"दर "सह, "याियक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" । Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member ITA NO.4502 & 4503/Mum/2015 Assessment Year-2010-11 & 2011-12 ACIT-19(2), M/s Lekhraj H. Doshi, Room No.207, 24/1, 02nd Carpenter Street, बनाम/ Matru Mandir, Pathe Bapurao Marg, Vs. Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400004 PAN No.ABPD1010C (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Shri R.P. Meena CIT-DR राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue by "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Ms. Nimisha Bothra…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain (HUF), Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…so CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the e…

Anil Chhaganlal Jain, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 18(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 369/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendra

Section 68

…so CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the e…

Sh. Braham Dev Gupta, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2102/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Sanjiv Jain CAFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…s real and if the assessee wants to show otherwise, the law casts onus upon the assessee to prove with cogent material (that the apparent is not real). Reliance is placed upon the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble SC in case of CIT Vs Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC). However, the assessee has not submitted any cogent material to rebut this presumption. 2.4 The court can only see if this opinion is logical as per the material before the Pr. CIT during proceedings u/s 263. 3.1 During proceedings u/s 263, the assessee was required to show cause as to why the AO was not required to become inquisitor in the…

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…so CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the assessee. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the assessee, under the facts available on record. A harmonious construction of section 106 of the e…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ JN. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAAPL6056H "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee by Shri M. Subramanian S…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…so CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the 12 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ITA Nos.3830 to 3831/Mum/2009 and ITA Nos. 4115 & 4116/Mum/2012 Revenue. In the case of a cash entry, it is necessary for the assessee to prove not only the identity of the creditor but also the capacity of the creditor and genuineness of the transactions. The onus lies on the asses…

ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Indian Corporate Loan Securitization Trust 2008 Series 14I, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 4343/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Goasinindian Corporate Loan Securitisation Income Tax Officer-9(3)(2) Trust- 2008 Series 14 Mumbai C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Vs. 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent Income Tax Officer-(23)1)(2) Indian Corporate Loan [Erstwhile Ito-19(3)(2)] Securitisation Trust- 2008 Series 14 Room No. 108, Matru Mandir Vs. C/O. Il & Fs Trust Co. Ltd. Tardeo Road, Grant Road 10Th Floor, “G” Block, Bkc Mumbai 400007 Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 Pan – Aaati6786P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur &For Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray

…of the alleged AOP, the question of their constituting an AOP does not arise. (vi) It was submitted that the burden is on the Revenue to show that the assessee constitute an AOP, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC); which burden the Revenue has not been discharged. An AOP is not an entity which is authorized to do a securitization activity and hence to hold the assessee as AOP would amount to negating the action of the assessee. Only a juristic person can become a member of an AOP and Mutual Funds being trusts, i.e. a 'non-juristic person' cannot become…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…evidence on record was not justified." 3.8. Furthermore, reliance for the same can be placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 11. CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 111. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.9. In the backdrop of the above judgments, the assessee would like to submit that its case here stands clearly covered by the above mentioned decisions. 3.10. As such, it is being humbly prayed before Your Honours, that the disallowance of 5% of miscellaneous expenditure on an a…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…evidence on record was not justified." 3.8. Furthermore, reliance for the same can be placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 11. CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 111. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.9. In the backdrop of the above judgments, the assessee would like to submit that its case here stands clearly covered by the above mentioned decisions. 3.10. As such, it is being humbly prayed before Your Honours, that the disallowance of 5% of miscellaneous expenditure on an a…

Manoj Singh, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-51, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 455/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.455/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) Manoj Singh, Vs. Dcit, Cir-51/Kol, 47, B.T.Road, Uttarapan, Kolkata-700054 Khardah, 24 Pgs (N), Kolkata-700116 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Altps 9206 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.N.Purohit, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 03/01/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 20/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2007-08, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Kolkata, In Appeal No.252/Cit(A)-15/14-15/Cir-51/Kol, Dated 23.02.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31.10.2007 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.8,97,213/- Asessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act By Making The Addition On Account Of Remission Of Liability U/S.41(1) At Rs.9,00,690/-. The Assessee Runs A Transport Business Under The Name M/S Ma Kali The Name M/S Ma Kali Automobile. While Making The Assessment

For Appellant: Shri V.N.Purohit, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvindam Bhattacharya, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…furnish the names and addresses of the payees, the A.O. has come to the conclusion that there was no actual payment. There is no positive evidence in support of his supposition in this regard. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull [87 ITR 349] that the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. Here, the learned A. O. has acted on the basis of his supposition only without proving his contention although the onus in that regard was with him to do so. Furthermore, the entire addition is based on the surmise or conjecture that there was no actua…

DCIT 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Simplex Castings Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2472/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Chand
Section 143(3)

…ee is concerned, there was no falsity proved and, therefore, the version of assessee has been merely disbelieved without any adverse evidence. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the following judgments :- (1) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull , 87 ITR 349 (SC) (2) Anis Ahmad & Sons v. CIT & Anr.,297 ITR 441(SC) (3) Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas v. CIT, 120 ITR 792 (Bom) (4) CIT v. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITXA No.5604 of 2010 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has supported the order of Assessing Officer and in particular, has referred to the Remand re…

Simplex Casting Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(OSD)-3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1562/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Chand
Section 143(3)

…ee is concerned, there was no falsity proved and, therefore, the version of assessee has been merely disbelieved without any adverse evidence. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the following judgments :- (1) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull , 87 ITR 349 (SC) (2) Anis Ahmad & Sons v. CIT & Anr.,297 ITR 441(SC) (3) Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas v. CIT, 120 ITR 792 (Bom) (4) CIT v. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITXA No.5604 of 2010 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has supported the order of Assessing Officer and in particular, has referred to the Remand re…

ACIT Cen Cir 11, Mumbai vs. Prakash C. Kanugo, Mumbai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for Asst Year

ITA 5223/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav (Jm) & Shri Jason P.Boaz (Am) Assessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri. Anandi VermaFor Respondent: Dr. K. Shivram & Ms. Neelam Jadhav
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271A

…hon’ble high courts can interfere with such a finding/s only where it is in its view either perverse or without evidence or based on irrelevant material, or which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant (refer, inter alia, CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC)). Further, even where so, the province of the hon’ble court is to restore the matter back to the tribunal, stating its reasons, as clarified by the hon’ble court in Janatha Contract Co. v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 627 (Ker), following the binding decisions by the apex court in CIT v. Greaves Cotton & Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 200 (SC) and CIT v. India…

ITO 21(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Vishal K Ganatra, Mumbai

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

ITA 133/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm Income Tax Officer-21(2)(4), Shri Vishal K. Ganatra Room No.503, 5Th Floor, C-10, 3Rd 12,Mahavir Bldg. Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Floor, K.D. Road, Vile Bandra Kurla Complex, Parle (W), Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 056. Mumbai-400 051. Pan: Aaxpg 1027Q Appellant .. Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 41(1)

…at the conclusion drawn by AO in the remand report itself is very hypothetical and does not show that how the asessee gained by doing so. The ld. CIT(A) while rightly relying upon the case titled Bedi and Co. Pvt. Ltd. 144 ITR 352 (Kar), Daulatram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) has appreciated that as per the rule of 6 ITO Vs. Vishal K. Ganatra evidence the burden of showing that the apparent was not real is on the person who claims it to be so. The ld. CIT(A) has rightly taken into consideration that it was for the AO to have investigated that matter further in order to prove that what is apparent was not real. T…

Kailash Chander, Hisar vs. Income Tax Officer, Hisar

ITA 817/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, CAFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…accordance with law. To support his contention, he relied upon the following case laws and stated that the issue in dispute stands squarely covered by the said decisions and therefore, the addition in dispute may be deleted. a) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull 87 ITR 349 (SC) b) CIT vs. Diamond Products Ltd. 177 Taxman 331 (Del.) c) CIT vs. Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd. 306 ITR 35 (Del.) d) ITA No. 1583/Del/2011 AY 1996-97 dated 11.5.2013 in the case of DCIT vs. Rainee Singh following judgments. 5 i) 264 ITR 254 Page. 261 to 266 (Gau.) Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT ii) 220 CTR 622 (Raj) Aravali Trading Co. vs. IT…

Shri Pramod Kumar Tekriwal, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 30(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2458/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 139(1)Section 194CSection 24Section 40

…982) 138 ITR 536 (Cal) has held that what is apparent has to be taken as real unless contrary is proved and the onus to prove the contrary is on the party making allegation. Similar view has also been taken in the case of CIT -vs.- Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (Se) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the present case, the AO is making an allegation that credit entries made in the ledger of sundry creditor accounts are purchase discounts, without any evidence of the same. Moreover, the contention of the AO is also based on illogical reasoning which are evidently incorrect. If at all, the assessee would have re…

Raj Bala, Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Raj Bala, Village Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Mandola Loni, H-5, West 2(2), Ghaziabad Jyoti Nagar, Loni Road, Delhi Gir/Pan :Aanpr2043K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. C.S. Anand, Adv. Respondent By Sh. V.P. Mishra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.07.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25/02/2013 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Ghaziabad, For Assessment Year 2006-07, Raising Following Grounds: I. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Rejecting The Assessee’S Claim That The Learned A.O. Had Wrongly/Illegally Assumed Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S 148. Ii. That On The Facts Of The Case & Under The Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs. 4,08,000/-, Made By The Learned A.O. U/S 69 In The Hands Of The Assessee For A.Y. 2006-07

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 69

…er, in the light of evidences filed by the assessee, the gift is genuine or not? 8. We may now deal with various cases relied upon by the rival parties. We may start with the cases cited by the Id. counsel. In the case of CIT Vs. Daulat Ram Rawat Mull (19783) 87 ITR 349, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was-whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was material before the Income-tax Tribunal to hold that the sum of Rs. 50,000/- out of the sum of Rs. 5.00 lakh standing in the name of Biswanath Gupta (Bhuwalka), representing the fixed deposit, was the concealed income of the ass…

Shri Bikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5609/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2011-12
Section 68

…counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi pronounced on 21/12/2015, in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Shiv Dooti Pearls & Investment Ltd. (429/2003), judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dwarkadhish Investment Private Limited reported in (2011) 330 ITR 298 (Delhi) . 8.5 It was further submitted that despite the assessee having discharged its initial onus to establish the identity of the creditors, creditworthiness of the creditors and genuineness of the transactio…

M/S Goyal Mg Gases Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 2194/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…cates non-satisfaction of the AO. Since, it is the assessee who alleges the apparent is not real, therefore, the onus lies on assessee to prove non-satisfaction of the AO was not there. The reliance is placed on the ratio of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC).” 8. ITA No. 2194 - AY 2008-09 : The return of income was filed at Rs. 10,627,057/-, whereas the assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act at an income of Rs. 12,427,175/- after making the following additions/disallowances: i. On account of alleged capital expenses claimed as revenue expenses - Rs. 418,145/- ii. Disallowan…