How many judgments cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai?

142 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Kulwant Rai (291 ITR 36), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Kulwant Rai come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 69A, Section 115BBE, Section 68, Section 69, Section 132.

CIT v. Kulwant Rai

291 ITR 36High Court2007#713 most cited

What is CIT v. Kulwant Rai authority for?

An assessee can explain cash deposits, including those in bank accounts, by demonstrating sufficient cash balance as per their books of account or from previous cash withdrawals. If the explanation is substantiated and the revenue cannot prove otherwise, the source of deposits is deemed proved, precluding additions under Section 68.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kulwant Rai · Section 68 · Section 115BBE · cash deposits explanation · source of cash deposits · cash book · previous cash withdrawals · unexplained money · onus of proof · Delhi High Court

Also reported as

163 Taxmann 585210 CTR 380

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 69A Section 115BBE Section 68 Section 69 Section 132 Section 153A Section 142(1)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bc circle rate preponderance of probability section 2(47)interest u/s 234a lack of enquiry section 69b section 158b section 158 section 48 dumb documents section 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Kulwant Rai

Manish Kumar Dubey, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-72(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2484/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Manish Kumar Dubey, Vs Ito, E-4, 2Nd Floor, Gali No.3, Ward -72(1), East Chander Nagar, New Delhi. New Delhi-110051. Pan-Aotpd0936K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ravi Pratap Mall, Adv. Respondent By Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 05.09.2024

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…n record, to suggest that the money withdrawn by the assessee has been utilized elsewhere for personal purposes or the money so withdrawn is not available with the assessee, as per the mandate of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36 (Del). With respect it is stated, that AO is an investigator and then an adjudicator and having not made any enquiry in respect of cash withdrawals so made by assesssee and her husband, he cannot draw and adverse inference against the assessee. Hence, availability of cash as a source of deposit cannot be rejected by the revenue. Relevant findings…

Sh. Sanjay Godha, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal. The Said Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Arises Because The Assessee Preferred An Appeal Before Him Against The Order Dated 20/11/2019 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, By Acit, Circle-01, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 539/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18 cuke Sh. Sanjay Godha, ACIT, Vs. 750, Achariyon Ka Rasta, Kishan Circle-01, Pole Bazar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPG 1328 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, FCA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 131

…indings recorded by the Tribunal are purely findings of fact— There is no reason to interfere with the same—No substantial question of law arises—CIT vs. Pradeep ShantaramPadgaonkar (1983) 143 ITR 785 (MP) relied on” 8.4.2 Also refer CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17 Held as under: “Search and seizure—Block assessment—Computation of undisclosed income—Cash found during search—Assessee had withdrawn Rs. 2 lakh from bank some time back and there is no material with the Department to show that this money had been spent and was not available with the assessee—Tribunal has found that the withdra…

Silver Wings Life Spaces, Kota vs. DCIT Circle-1 Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 511/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Learned Cit(A), Which Appeal Was Filed By The Assessee

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra(Addl. CIT)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…ality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer 24 Silver Wings Life Spaces vs DCIT, Kota R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). And in the present case the ld. AO invoked provision of sec. 115BBE merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law and invoking provision of section 69 invalid ignoring the true and correct facts of the case. The provision of section 69 cannot be made applicable as primary…

Ram Gopal Saini, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 150/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC’’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 150/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Ram Gopal Saini cuke The ITO Vs. 470-71, Devi Nagar, Ward- 4 (2) New Sanganer Road, Jaipur 302 001 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ADSEPS 0670 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Rohan Sogani, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ d…

Ashok Chowdhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 238/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Meena, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 254Section 68

…s with what the assessee did with that money, i.e. whether he had kept the same in his house or utilized the services of a bank by depositing the same.’’ Similar viewhas also been taken by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kulwant Rai (200&0, 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) in which it has been observed that (CLC 3-8) "The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income- tax are completely silent as to for what purpose the earlier withdrawals 8 ASHOK CHOWDHARY VS ITO, WARD-JHALAWAR would have been spent. As per the cash book maintained by the assessed, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was being spent for…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…e strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. Kindly refer (a) Reliance is placed on same and identical matter where Hon’ble VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT Bench (DB) in the matter of M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam ITA No. 253/…

Shipra Singh Rana, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3032/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2021-22

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

Section 50CSection 69Section 69A

…een utilized elsewhere for the personal purposes or money so withdrawn is not available with the assessee. The Assessee's Representative relying on the Judgment of the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36 (Del) in support of his submission. The Ld. Counsel further submitted that the Lower Authorities have made no enquiry to find out as to whether the money so withdrawn by the assessee and her husband has been spent away for personal purposes. The Ld. Counsel has also relied on the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of S. R V…

Rita Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3030/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Apr 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2021-22 Rita Singh, Vs. Acit, H-1, Zamrudpur Central Circle-2, Community Centre, New Delhi. Kailash Colony, New Delhi 110 048 Pan Abkps4308J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…17-18 4,29,82,590 2,75,04,650 5. 2016-17 4,16,09,210 2,72,46,480 6. The burden of the appellant stood discharged once the details of cash withdrawals were submitted from the bank. The assessee further relied on various case laws including, CIT vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del), S.R. Venkata Ratnam vs. CIT 127 ITR 807 (Kar) and others. 7. On 28.08.2023 Learned CIT (A) passed the order upholding the addition of Rs. 75,98,000/- u/s 69A of the Act made by the Learned Assessing officer. Hence the appeal. 3 8. Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had made submissions before the Learned CIT(A) w…

Kamal Dewan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 135/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69A

…be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 4. It is submitted that assessee had discharged his duty to explain the deposits made in his bank account by furnishing the written explanation along with supporting evidences as…

Inderjit Singh, Sangrur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward- Sangrur, Sangrur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/CHANDI/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Mar 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Cit(A) Has Not Been Considered Properly. 4. That The Appellant Craves Leave To Add Or Amend The Grounds Of Appeal Before The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. During The Course Of Hearing, The Ld Ar Submitted That This Is A Case Of An Individual Who Is An Agriculturist. Notice Under Section 142(1) Dated 09.03.2018 Was Issued In The Case Of The Assessee For Filling The Return Of Income. The Department Issued The Said Notice To The Assessee On Account Of Information With The Department

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 69

…haran Singh vs ITO (ITA No.164/ASR/2015) order dated 3.2.2016. (Amritsar Bench) vii) ITO vs Chandan IMijjer in ITA No. 61/Asr/2016 order dated 08.08.2016 (Amritsar Bench) viii) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Chawla 121 TTJ 366 (Del) ix) CIT vs Kulwant Rai as reported in 291 ITR 36 (Del HC) ix) Rajinder Singh vs ACIT in ITA No. 1439/Del/2017 order dated 06.02.2018 (Delhi Bench) x) ITO vs Mrs Deepali Sehgal in ITA No. 5660/Del/2012 order dated 05.09.2014 (Delhi Bench) xi) Gordhan vs ITO in ITA No. 811/Del/2015 vide order dated 19.10.2015. (Delhi Bench) xi) DCIT vs Smt Veena Awasthi in ITA No. 215/LKW/2016 order dated 30.11.20…

ACIT, Circle CC 15, New Delhi vs. Alka Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1864/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

…lant has received more than what has been declared by him in respect of the assessment in question, the onus would lie on the Revenue to prove this fact by bringing some material on record.” (xxi) In the case of in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36, Delhi High Court had held as under: "12. Coming to the facts of the present case with regard to the addition of Rs. 17,00,892/- made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed income of the Assessee for the block period, we may ITA Nos. 1863 & 1864/Del/2021 44 CO Nos. 25 & 28/Del/2022 Yash Pal & Alka Mendiratta refer to the findings of the Tribuna…

ACIT, CC-15, New Delhi vs. Yash Pal Mendiratta, Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed and the Cross Objections of the assessees are also dismissed

ITA 1863/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR

Section 153ASection 69

ACIT, Central Circle-28, New Delhi vs. Stonex India Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1784/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…not based on any evidence that was found during the course of search proceedings. While allowing the relief, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has also accepted the assessees reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36 (DEL). I.T.A. No.1784/Del/2022 8 Although the Ld. CIT DR has contested the deletion of addition by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), she could not point out any legal infirmity or factual infirmity on this adjudication by the Ld CIT (Appeals). The Department also could not point out any judgment to the contrary and in favour of the Department in this regard…

Ajay Bairagi, Kota vs. DCIT, Circle-2, Kota

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

ITA 641/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…uted either during the assessment proceedings by the Ld. AO or the Ld. CIT(A) during first appellate proceedings. In this regard, following judgement have been relied upon by the appellant: The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Kulwant  Rai [291 ITR 36] wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under: 7 SHRI AJAY BAIRAGI, KOTA VS DCIT, CIRCLE-2, KOTA “This cash flow statement furnished by the assessee was rejected by the AO which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessee must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of AO as well as CIT(A) are completely silent as to for what purp…

Radha Rani Goel, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 70(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2794/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

…ash deposits made by the assessee stands duly explained out of cash balance available in the books. My view is further fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs Page 3 of 5 Radha Rani Goel vs. ITO Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36 (Kar) wherein it was held as under:- 14. The next ground taken up by the learned counsel for the revenue is with regard to the addition of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on account of cash amounting to Rs. 3,76,800 found in the bed room of the assessee at the time of search. 15. The assessee has not disputed this recovery. However, the case of assessee is that thi…

DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs. Shri Kalpesh Kantilal Gada, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1531/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Ms Dinkle Hariya a/w Ms. SimoniFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chougule, Sr. DR

Section 44Section 44ASection 68

…ed that cash withdrawn is also put to any other use. In such circumstances, there is no reason to reject the source of cash in this regard. In this regard, we draw support from the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Delhi) for the following proposition :- "16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessee was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessee must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner of Income-tax are completely silent as to for…

Arvind Walia, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle 30, Delhi

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

ITA 440/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarshri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…lained while quantifying the undisclosed amount, if any”. 15. In view of the above, source of the cash deposit is duly established vide the cash book for AY 2015-16 to AY 2017-18. 16. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kulwant Rai reported at 291 ITR 36 had held that as per accountancy principles where the deposits are as per cash flow statement, the same should be accepted. Relevant extracts are as under: "This cash flow statement furnished by the assessee was rejected by the AO which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessee must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders o…

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT

Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…cipleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s 18 ITA 433/JP/2023 BALAJI JEWELLERS VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 1.4 Kindly refer (a) Reliance is placed on same and identical matter where Hon’ble VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT Bench (DB) in the matter of M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam ITA No. 25…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…e strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 1.4 Kindly refer (a) Reliance is placed on same and identical matter where Hon’ble VISAKHAPATNAM ITAT Bench (DB) in the matter of M/s Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam ITA No.…