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

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…o order dated 12.8.2016 ITA No. 251 & 252/Vizag/2012 (v) K V Lakshmi Savitri Devi vs. ACIT (2012) 148 TTJ 157, ITAT Hyderabad Benches. (vi) CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) (vii) CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) (viii) CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) 14.4 It is humbly submitted that without any corroborating evidence the AO is not justified in making additions and such an addition based purely on surmise and conjecture is liable to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. 14.5 Assessee submits that Ground No. 10 and 11 are consequential grounds and have been answered…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…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…

Girish B. Chaudhari, L/O. of Late Shri Bhagwat N Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. Income-Tax Officer, Nashik

ITA 1133/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ssa)A No.80/Pun/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Adkpc7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (Lh Of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Aalpc0512G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sardar Singh Meena
Section 142(1)

…state as under: These are some of the terms proposed by the proposed seller of the property to us. This is proposal given by some of the property owner which did not materialize. The reliance placed on Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. GirishChaudhari (296 ITR 619). 9.3 In reply, another show cause notice u/s. 142(1) of the IT. Act, 1961 on 23.01.2014 was issued as under: You have stated that these are some of the terms proposed by the seller of the property. This proposal did not materialize. It is brought to your notice that, on the backside of this page total cost of agreement is noted of Rs 725.00 Lacs…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…gard to the addition is concerned which is based on dumb documents:- - Asstt, CIT v. Dr.Kamla Prasad Singhf20101 3 ITR (TRIB.) 533 (Pat.): - Pioneer Publicity Corpn. v. Dy. CIT [20001 67 TTJ f Delhi) 471: - CIT v. Girish Chaudhary f20071 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…gard to the addition is concerned which is based on dumb documents:- - Asstt, CIT v. Dr.Kamla Prasad Singhf20101 3 ITR (TRIB.) 533 (Pat.): - Pioneer Publicity Corpn. v. Dy. CIT [20001 67 TTJ f Delhi) 471: - CIT v. Girish Chaudhary f20071 163 Taxman 608/120081 296 ITR 619 (Delhi): - Asstt. CIT v. Radheshyam Poddar [19921 41 ITD 449 fCal.): - S.K. Gupta v. Dy.CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532; - Satnam Singh Chhabra v. Dy. CIT [20021 74 TTJ (Lucknow) 976: - CIT v. S.M. Aggarwal [20071162 Taxman 3/293 ITR 43 (Delhi): - Pankaj Dahyabhai Patel (Huf) v. Asstt. CIT M9991 63 TTJ 790 (Ahd.): - N.K. Malhan v. Dy. CIT [2005] 91…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…665 (Del) (4) Kishan Chand Sobhraj Mal (1991) 42 TTJ 423 (JP) (5) CIT Vs. Naresh Khattar (HUF) (2003) 261 ITR 664 (Del) (6) Lal Chand Agarwal vsA CIT 21 TW 213 (ITAT Jaipur) (7) CIT Vs. S.M. Agarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (8) CIT Vs. Girish Choudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) (9) JayantiLal Patel Vs. ACIT (1998) 233 ITR 588 (Raj) (10) RakeshGoyal Vs. ACIT (2004) 87 TTJ 151 (Del) (11) ITO Vs. Manna LalJhalani 22 TW 551 (ITAT Jaipur) (12) Hissaria Brother Vs. ACIT 22 TW 684 (ITAT Jaipur) (13) DCIT Vs. Countrywide Buildestate Pvt Ltd. (2012) 48 TW 50 (Jaipur ITAT) order dated 29.06.2012 ITA No. 961/JP/2011 17. The…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle - 2(2), Pune vs. M/S Sinhgad Technical Education Society (Trust), Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

ITA 1654/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl. It(Ss)A No./ Name Of Appellant Name Of Respondent Asst. No.

For Appellant: Shri Chetan A. KariaFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 153A

…sible in law. In support of this fact, the appellant society relied on the following decisions :- (i) Amarnath Virendra Kumar – Delhi High Court dated 11.12.2014. (ii) D. S. Doors Pvt. Ltd. – Delhi ITAT, 43 CCH 261. (iii) Girish Chaudhary – Delhi High Court – 296 ITR 619. (iv) Balaji Educational and Charitable Public Trust – Madras High Court. (v) Common Cause Registered Society vs. UOI – Supreme Court. (B). Another contention raised by the appellant society is that the Assessing Officer had gathered evidence from the students/parents of the students by recording the statements u/s 131 of the Act and notices u/s…

Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…ere cannot be any extrapolation by presuming that the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 455/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…ere cannot be any extrapolation by presuming that the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…ere cannot be any extrapolation by presuming that the figures were in lacs or crores when no such figures had been written on the documents seized during the course of search. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT Vs,. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del) • Atul Kumar Jain Vs. DCIT 64 TTJ 786 (Delhi) 9.3 The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee directed the A.O. to produce the said seized record and also to bring on record the basis of working out unaccounted income / investment the A.O. submitted his report dt. 06/01/2014 and the relevant portion of the said report…

Kuber Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1124/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 1123 & 1124/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Kuber Products P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCK6519J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 13/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals filed by the assessee for asse…

Kuber Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-30, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1123/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 153Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 1123 & 1124/Del/2019 (Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Kuber Products P Ltd, Vs. ACIT, 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Central Circle-30, Delhi New Delhi PAN: AABCK6519J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri P. C. Yadav, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing 13/07/2021 Date of pronouncement 13/09/2021 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the two appeals filed by the assessee for asse…

Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Khatwani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3-2, Jaipur

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

ITA 533/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 533/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Dholumal Alias Dholan Das Cuke I.T.O., Vs. Khatwani, Ward-3(2), 129, Bani Park, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Adrpk 6555 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Jcit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/06/2021 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)-I, Jaipur Dated 07/03/2019 For The A.Y. 2010-11. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1(A) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Authorities Below Have Erred In Holding The View That The Statutory Notice U/S 147/148 Of The Act Issued In 'Incorrect' Name Is A Valid Notice. The Statutory Notice Issued In Incorrect Name Is Patently An Invalid Notice As Per Provisions Of Law & The Same Deserves To Be Quashed. 1(B) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Authorities Below Have Factually & Legally Erred In Turning Down The Various Objections Of The Appellant Regarding Initiation Of The Re-Assessment Proceedings U/S 147/148 Of The Act Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case In Right Perspective & Also Without Addressing The Points At Issue. Thus The Findings Of The Authorities Below In This Regard Are Not Well Reasoned, The Same Deserve To Be Quashed Summarily.

For Appellant: Shri K.L. Moolchandani (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 269SSection 271DSection 3

…CIT, CC-1 VS. C. Krishna Yadav (2011) 12 taxmann .com 4(Hyd) (vi) ACIT vs Sharad Chaudhary (2015) 55 taxmann.com 324 (Delhi Trib). (vii) Dimsy Food & Chemicals (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2008) 24 SOT 65 (Delhi)(Uro). (viii) CIT Delhi-IV vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) (e) Further, it was alleged that the cash funds of Rs. 8 lac had passed hands from the agents of Shri Asha Ram to the appellant, who is again a 'Broker' only, doing no business on his own as evident from his ITRs. This fact has not been disputed by the Revenue. Once this fact is acknowledged and acted upon by the Deptt, then the nature o…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ACIT, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADDPC7559G Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: Th…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member (Through Video Conferencing) ITA No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 ITA No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 ACIT, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADDPC7559G Assessee by : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR Date of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: Th…

Arun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 458/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 :- 36 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 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…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(1)2, Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 457/HYD/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 :- 36 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 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…

Tarun Kumar Goyal, Hyderabad vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

Appeals are allowed in above terms

ITA 456/HYD/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohana Rao, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sibendu Moharana, DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)

…). Shri Neeraj Goyal Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5951/Del/2017, dt.21-03-2018, (Del) (2012) 23 :- 36 -: ITA Nos. 456, 457 & 458/Hyd/2020 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- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.4223/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 And ITA No.4225/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 And ITA No.4226/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Central Circle-30, Ltd., New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi PAN :AABCK0600L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Aashna Paul, CIT(DR) Respondent by Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Date of hearing 15.03.2021 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KA…

ACIT, Central Circle- 30, New Delhi vs. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Ltd., New Dlehi

In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4223/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Chary[Through Video Conferencing]

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(1)Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Through Video Conferencing] ITA No.4223/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 And ITA No.4225/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2011-12 And ITA No.4226/Del./2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 ACIT, Vs. M/s. Kuber Khadyan Pvt. Central Circle-30, Ltd., New Delhi 1/8, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi PAN :AABCK0600L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Aashna Paul, CIT(DR) Respondent by Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Date of hearing 15.03.2021 Date of pronouncement 26.03.2021 ORDER PER O.P. KA…