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

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1539/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 271(1)(c)Section 292C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “C”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1539/DEL/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09 M/S HABITAT ROYALE PROJECTS P ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-22, LTD., VS. NEW DELHI 2, GOLDEN GATE, WESTEND GREEN, RAJOKARI, NEW DELHI – 110 038 (PAN: AABCH4891A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by : Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM Assessee has filed this appeal against the Order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, New Delhi pertaini…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Kanodia, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and that of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4241/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4241/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jian, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…T Nag) " ACIT Vs Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, M/s Prathima Educational (2013) 11 TMI 826 (ITAT Hyd) " DCIT, CC-2 Vs M/s Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 9 TMI 252 (ITAT Jaipur) " ACIT Vs Shri OP Bhalla (2012) 7 TMI 584 (ITAT Del.) " CIT Vs Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del.) 26. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in the said orders. It was further submitted that the documents were found from the residential premises of the assessee and no satisfactory explanation was given. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by t…

Rajesh Kumar Kanodia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the department are dismissed and that of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3670/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena A. Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4241/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jian, Adv. &For Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 153A

…T Nag) " ACIT Vs Sri B. Srinivasa Rao, M/s Prathima Educational (2013) 11 TMI 826 (ITAT Hyd) " DCIT, CC-2 Vs M/s Rising Buildestate Pvt. Ltd. (2012) 9 TMI 252 (ITAT Jaipur) " ACIT Vs Shri OP Bhalla (2012) 7 TMI 584 (ITAT Del.) " CIT Vs Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Del.) 26. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in the said orders. It was further submitted that the documents were found from the residential premises of the assessee and no satisfactory explanation was given. Therefore, the addition was rightly made by t…

Gudla Bhaskar Rao, Koraput vs. ACIT, Berhampur Circle, Berhampur

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

ITA 272/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

…d report and the findings of the Assessing Officer and comments of the assessee, the CIT(A) was satisfied that the figures 643.5 was kg and not 643.5 lakhs. Ld CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Giris Choudhury, 296 ITR 619 (Del) and deleted the addition, by observing as under: “I have carefully considered the matter and looked at the copy of the seized paper. The said seized paper is not part of any books of account. Admittedly, in the id paper against various names and initials, certain figures have been mentioned and e total comes to 643 ½ . The AO states that…

Yazdani International (P) Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 17/CTK/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack31 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)

…d report and the findings of the Assessing Officer and comments of the assessee, the CIT(A) was satisfied that the figures 643.5 was kg and not 643.5 lakhs. Ld CIT(A) relied on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Giris Choudhury, 296 ITR 619 (Del) and deleted the addition, by observing as under: “I have carefully considered the matter and looked at the copy of the seized paper. The said seized paper is not part of any books of account. Admittedly, in the id paper against various names and initials, certain figures have been mentioned and e total comes to 643 ½ . The AO states that…

Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1182/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita No. 1182/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Vijay Kumar Aggarwal, Vs Acit, M-65, Jagat Ram Park, Laxmi Central Circle-12, Nagar, Delhi New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aexpa2040R Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Ravi Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.05.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv., &For Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…ng on estimate basis. Reliance can be placed on the recent judgment of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Anil Bhatia wherein the ITAT has discussed the scope of section 153A at length. Further reliance can be placed on the judgment of CIT Vs Girish Chaudhry 296 ITR 619 (Del). It is relevant to mention here that the facts of this case were similar to the facts of the case of the assessee's case. Their lordships have affirmed the following finding of the ITAT: "In the present case, the Revenue has used its longest arm of search available to the Revenue to unearth unaccounted money or evidence thereof. Having take…

Sh. Vikas Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: SH. V.K.SABHARWAL, ADV. &For Respondent: MS. BEDOBINA CHAUDHURI, SR. DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…nches. 6. Hon 'ble A.P. High Court in the case 0/ K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 5630/2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. 7. CBIvs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) 8. CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) 9. CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) - Delhi High Court. 10. ACITvs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ0145) (Delhi) 11. Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur.” 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference, hence, he requested that the…

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 5515/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

…Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference and the same may be upheld. 8. We h…

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 378/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

…Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference and the same may be upheld. 8. We h…

Habitat Royale Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee Appeals stand allowed

ITA 377/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 292C

…Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference and the same may be upheld. 8. We h…

Samta Khinda, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal No

ITA 336/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. I.P.S. Bindra, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271ASection 292CSection 69Section 698Section 69B

…Benches. - Hon’ble A.P. High Court in the case of K Lakshmi Savitri Devi (Supra) in ITA No. 563 of 2011 has upheld the order of the Tribunal. - CBI vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410) - CIT vs. PV Kalyansundaram (294 ITR 49) - CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008) 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) – Delhi High Court. - ACIT vs. Sharad Chaudhary (2014) 165 TTJ 0145) (Delhi) - Sunita Dhadda vs. DCIT (2012) 71 DTR 0033 Jaipur 7.1 On the other hand, Ld. CIT(DR) relied upon the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has passed a well reasoned order which does not need any interference and the same may be upheld. 8. We h…

Atul Kumar Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 874/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Oct 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 874/DEL/2016 A.Y. 2012-13 ATUL KUMAR KHANDELWAL, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-20,. 204, 2ND FLOOR, NEW DELHI VS. VIVEKANANDPURI, NEW DELHI – 110 007 (PAN: APJPK4706M) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, Adv. Department by : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of…

Harsh Deep Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 47, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1941/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 299

…s unrealistic and ignored the ground situation.” In the instant case, the claim of the assessee is that the project was developed by it for a specific minority community and hence the rate was quoted comparatively lesser. (c) CIT Vs. Girish Chaudhary (2008)(296 ITR 619)(Delhi), where in the Hon’ble High Court held that the revenue has to prove the undisclose 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 upon…

Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiv vs. Vivek Aggarwal

ITA/66/2014HC Delhi09 Feb 2015
Section 132Section 153A

…ITA No.66-69/2014 & 75-77/2014 Page 1 $~4-10 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: 09th February, 2015 + ITA 66/2014 + ITA 67/2014 + ITA 68/2014 + ITA 69/2014 + ITA 75/2014 + ITA 76/2014 + ITA 77/2014 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-XIV ..... Appellant Through Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, sr. standing counsel with Mr. Aamir Aziz, Adv. versus VIVEK AGGARWAL ..... Respondent Through Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Prakash Kumar and Ms. Megha Kamthan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE…

Urmila Gambhir vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA/12/2006HC Delhi23 Dec 2009

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

Section 132Section 158B

…The document does not speak for itself and is a dumb document unsupported in material particulars of any search material and needs to be rejected having no evidentiary value. There is no warrant to read 51762/- as Rs.51,76,200/-. Reliance is placed on 296 ITR 619 (Del.)-CIT vs. Girish Chaudhary, which is a Division Bench judgment of this Court against which even SLP filed by the revenue in the Supreme Court has since been rejected vide order dated 15th February, 2008. It was argued that the Appellant had made no purchase of any agricultural land. It was the company which purchased Agricultural lan…