CIT v. Girish Chaudhary

296 ITR 619High Court2008#552 most cited

What is CIT v. Girish Chaudhary authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on "dumb documents" or vague loose papers seized during a search that merely indicate rates without specific corroborative material linking them to the assessee's unaccounted transactions. The presumption under Section 292C may not apply to such documents.

175

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Girish Chaudhary · 296 ITR 619 · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132 · Section 292C · dumb documents · loose papers · evidentiary value of seized material · on-money receipts · unaccounted income · corroborative evidence

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 608

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 115BBESection 292CSection 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionabatement of assessmentsection 158b(b)section 132(4a)third party informationdumb documentson money receiptsection 158bb(1)section 292cstatement under section 132(4)loose paperssection 158bc

Judgments citing CIT v. Girish Chaudhary

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4010/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2006-07 With Assessment Year: 2007-08 With Assessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Acit, Central Circle-22, Ltd., New Delhi 401, Vipps Centre, 2 Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent) With C.O. No.120/Del/2015 [In Ita No.5051/Del/2012] Assessment Year: 2006-07 With C.O. No.218/Del/2012 [In Ita No.4011/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2007-08 With C.O. No.1/Del/2025 [In Ita No.4010/Del/2011] Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. New World Buildcon Pvt. Vs. Acit, Ltd., Central Circle-22, 401, Vipps Centre, 2 New Delhi Community Complex, Masjid Moth, Greater Kailash-Ii, New Delhi Pan: Aaccn1600L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153C

…gs dated 30.12.2009 at pages 2 and 3 wherein same rough jottings and alleged map was seized from the searched person (page 9, Annexure- A-1), which is indeed in the nature of dumb document only in light of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Girish Chaudhary, 2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del). We wish to reiterate here that the above 8 | P a g e ITA Nos.5051/Del/2012; 4011 & 4010/Del/2011 & C.O. Nos.120/Del/2015; 218/Del/2012 & 1/Del/2025 seized document merely indicates some rates than pinpointing any specific on-money payment or receipt; as the case may be, involving the assessee. 10. Faced with this situation, we are of th…

Sri. D. K Shivakumar, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bengaluru

ITA 1064/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: S/ShriFor Respondent: Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 132(4)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 292CSection 69ASection 69B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. D. K. Shivakumar, Vs. DCIT, No.252, “Kenkkeri” 18th Cross, Circle – 1(4), Upper Palace Orchards, Bangalore. Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560 080. PAN : AKKPS 1306 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : S/Shri. Chandrasekhar and Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue by : Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel. Date of hearing : 10.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This is an appeal…

Asstt. Commissioner of Incomet Ax Central Circle-1(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 148/NAG/2018[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…is no material on record placed by AO for justifying the arbitrary action of extrapolation of figures and adding two "zeros" by adding Rs. 5,33,55,000/- to the total income of Assessee. Assessee relies on Delhi High Court decision in CIT v/s Girish chaudhary (296 ITR 619], where in the Hon'ble Court held as follows:- 'Before an addition of an undisclosed income can be made, the AO has to bring on record the material found as a result of search to show that there is an undisclosed income- AO treated Rs.48 lakhs as Assessee's undisclosed income on the basis of seizure of a document which showed certain unexplained…

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(3), Benglauru vs. Shri Kempareddy Govindraju, Domlur, Bengaluru

In the result the appeals of the assessee in ITA No’s 1022 to 1024/ Bang/ 2024, for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue in ITA Nos

ITA 1291/BANG/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

For Appellant: Shri. V. Chandrasekhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Sridhar E, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 131(1)Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…her bearing the taxpayer’s name or signature). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269] Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, CIT Vs. S.M.Agarwal, [293 ITR 43], CIT Vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. We accordingly hold that the impugned addition of on-money payment made in both these assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document and not corroborated by any other evidence is not sustainable. We thus direct to delete the impugned identical addition forming subject matter of adjudication in both these…

ACIT., Central Circle 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Spectra India Eco Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 797/HYD/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member, Shri Madhusudan Sawdia (Accountant Member)

Section 132Section 153A

…Insofar as, various case laws relied upon by the assessee, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI Vs. V.C. Shukla (supra), Common Cause (A. Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 394 ITR 220 (SC), CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi High Court) and CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi High Court), the facts of these cases are totally different from the facts of the assessee’s case and cannot be applied to the assessee’s case. Thus, we reject the case laws relied upon by the assessee. 14. In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the…

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-3, New Delhi

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

ITA 2363/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Nimisha Singh, CIT DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 139Section 153ASection 153DSection 69BSection 69C

…following propositions: I. That seized material in absence of any corroborative evidence found from the possession of the appellant, cannot form basis for making any addition. i) 291 ITR 36 (Del) CIT v KulwantRai ii) 293 ITR 43 (Del) CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal iii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT v. GirishChaudhary iv) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. VedParkashChaudhary v) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta vi) 383 ITR 320 (Del) CIT v. VatikaLandbase (P) Ltd. vii) 393 ITR 276 (Bom) CIT v. Arpit Land (P) Ltd. viii) 332 ITR 468 (P&H) CIT v. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. ix) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT v. Jai Pal Aggarwal x) 187 ITD 289 (Asr) Smt. H…

Amol Suresh Yevankar, Barshi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 14, Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 3606/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69A

…oborated by the learned lower authorities nor the assessee herein has been afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the alleged recipient as per M/s Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise 2015 (324) ELT (241) SC. I further quote (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) to conclude that such a dumb document does not result in any addition to be made if it is not followed by detailed supportive evidence. 3 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 16.12.2024. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP*…

Neeraj Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 3559/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2016-17 Sh. Neeraj Aggarwal, Vs. Acit, Rz-227B, Sadh Nagar, Central Circle-17, Gali No. 6, Palam Colony, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Afnpa1136K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. B.S. Anand, Sr. Dr

Section 69C

…re throw any light on the corresponding details of the impugned 2 | P a g e interest expenditure nor they have been substantiated during the course of scrutiny. 6. Faced with this situation, we quote Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) to conclude that the impugned addition based on the foregoing dumb document is not sustainable. The same stands deleted. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th December, 2024 (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 4th December, 2024. RK/-…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Builders and Developers LLP, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 269/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1229/Mum/2013 dtd. 28-02-2018, Shri Neeraj Goyal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5951/Del/2017 dtd. 21-03-2018, (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269, Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT vs. S.M.Agarwal 293 ITR 43, CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. 14. Such addition has been made by the ld. AO without specifying the very nature and purpose of the said tables in excel sheet. It was duly submitted to the ld. AO that there is no undisclosed investments in the said lands. Even Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat was not confronted with the said documents but on th…

Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 240/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1229/Mum/2013 dtd. 28-02-2018, Shri Neeraj Goyal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5951/Del/2017 dtd. 21-03-2018, (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269, Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT vs. S.M.Agarwal 293 ITR 43, CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. 14. Such addition has been made by the ld. AO without specifying the very nature and purpose of the said tables in excel sheet. It was duly submitted to the ld. AO that there is no undisclosed investments in the said lands. Even Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat was not confronted with the said documents but on th…

ACIT, Central Circle, Kota vs. Banas Minerals Private Limited, Jhalawar

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 239/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Dec 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rajendra Jain (Adv.) (V.C)For Respondent: Smt. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.H)
Section 153ASection 250Section 69B

…Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1229/Mum/2013 dtd. 28-02-2018, Shri Neeraj Goyal vs. ACIT in ITA No. 5951/Del/2017 dtd. 21-03-2018, (2012) 23 taxmann.com 269, Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, CIT vs. S.M.Agarwal 293 ITR 43, CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) also echo the very principle. 14. Such addition has been made by the ld. AO without specifying the very nature and purpose of the said tables in excel sheet. It was duly submitted to the ld. AO that there is no undisclosed investments in the said lands. Even Shri Devendra Singh Shekhawat was not confronted with the said documents but on th…

Sachin Verma, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 59/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…d to discharge the said burden. 16. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) it has been held that the loose sheets of paper cannot be considered to be books. 17. In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held as under:- "That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not placed…

Kamal Kant Verma, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 53/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…d to discharge the said burden. 16. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) it has been held that the loose sheets of paper cannot be considered to be books. 17. In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held as under:- "That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not placed…

M/S Standard Frozen Foods Exports Pvt Ltd, Hapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-II, Kanpur

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

ITA 45/LKW/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 132Section 153ASection 153D

…d to discharge the said burden. 16. Reliance is also placed on the decision in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) it has been held that the loose sheets of paper cannot be considered to be books. 17. In the case of CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court has held as under:- "That the revenue has to prove the undisclosed income beyond doubt. Further it was held that the document should be a speaking one and it should contain narration in respect of various figures noted therein. Otherwise the same should be considered as dumb document on which reliance could not placed…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…mises said dumb document is found. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 394 ITR 220 (SC) Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others v. UOI (pages 138-146 of JPB) following the judgment in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 ii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary(pages 392-394 of JPB) iii) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. Ved Parkash Chaudhary iv) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta(pages 201-203 of JPB) v) 322 ITR 391 (Del) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla vi) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT vs. Jai Pal Aggarwal (pages 184-189 of JPB) 9. On appeal the Tribunal examined the seized document and found th…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…mises said dumb document is found. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 394 ITR 220 (SC) Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others v. UOI (pages 138-146 of JPB) following the judgment in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 ii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary(pages 392-394 of JPB) iii) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. Ved Parkash Chaudhary iv) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta(pages 201-203 of JPB) v) 322 ITR 391 (Del) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla vi) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT vs. Jai Pal Aggarwal (pages 184-189 of JPB) 9. On appeal the Tribunal examined the seized document and found th…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…mises said dumb document is found. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 394 ITR 220 (SC) Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others v. UOI (pages 138-146 of JPB) following the judgment in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 ii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary(pages 392-394 of JPB) iii) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. Ved Parkash Chaudhary iv) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta(pages 201-203 of JPB) v) 322 ITR 391 (Del) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla vi) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT vs. Jai Pal Aggarwal (pages 184-189 of JPB) 9. On appeal the Tribunal examined the seized document and found th…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…mises said dumb document is found. Reliance is placed upon following judgments: i) 394 ITR 220 (SC) Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Others v. UOI (pages 138-146 of JPB) following the judgment in the case of CBI v. V.C. Shukla reported in 3 SCC 410 ii) 296 ITR 619 (Del) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary(pages 392-394 of JPB) iii) 305 ITR 245 (Del) CIT vs. Ved Parkash Chaudhary iv) 308 ITR 230 (Del) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta(pages 201-203 of JPB) v) 322 ITR 391 (Del) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla vi) 212 Taxman 1 (Del) CIT vs. Jai Pal Aggarwal (pages 184-189 of JPB) 9. On appeal the Tribunal examined the seized document and found th…

Laxmi Memorial Education Trust, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 1, Mangalore

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

ITA 756/BANG/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Srinivas Kamath, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132

…sstt. CIT v. Satyapal Wassan [2007] 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jab.) ; (c) Asstt. CIT v. Dr. Kamla Prasad Singh [2010] 3 ITR (Trib) 533 (Pat.) ; (d) CIT v. Khazan Singh & Bros. [2008] 304 ITR 243/[2007] 164 Taxman 30 (Punj. & Har.) ; (e) CIT v. Girish Chaudhary [2008] 296 ITR 619/[2007] 163 Taxman 608 (Delhi) ; (f) Bansal Strips (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2006] 99 ITD 177 (Delhi) ; (g) CIT v. Maulikkumar K. Shah [2008] 307 ITR 137 (Guj.). (l) As regards the presumption under s. 132(4A), it was submitted that a loose sheet is not a book/document so as to raise the presumption. For this proposition, reliance was placed on the…

Mohammed Ibrabim Mohideen, Kerala vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 486/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri D.K. Mishra, D.R
Section 153ASection 69B

…P.) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Maulikkumar K. Shah (2008) 307 ITR 137 (Guj) (iv) CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2006) 282 ITR 97 (MP) (v) Pr.CIT vs. Kamlesh Prahladbhai Modi (2018) 94 taxmann.com 356 (Guj) (vi) CIT vs. Shri Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (vii) CIT vs. Vivek Aggarwal (2015) 56 taxmann.com 7 (Del) (viii) CIT vs. Salek Chand Agarwal (2008) 300 ITR 426 (All) (ix) CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF) 352 ITR 629 (Del) 4.32 We find that the conclusions reached by the Assessing Officer are merely based on presumptions and assumptions without bringing corroborative material on record. It…