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 69ASection 115BBESection 68Section 69Section 132Section 153ASection 142(1)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bccircle ratepreponderance of probabilitysection 2(47)interest u/s 234alack of enquirysection 69bsection 158bsection 158section 48dumb documentssection 115bb

Judgments citing CIT v. Kulwant Rai

ACIT, International Taxation Cir.-1(2), Kolkata vs. Mahabir Prasad Gupta, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross

ITA 2302/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

…cash deposited as unexplained money u/s 69A. Veena Awasthi ITA 215/Lukw/2016 c) No addition can be made for cash deposited unless AO brings evidence/ material on record to prove that cash withdrawal is for some other purpose. i) CIT v. Shri Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 (Del) ii) Shri Gordhan, Delhi v. ITO. Gurgaon. ITA 811/DEL/2015 dt 19.10.2015 Hence it may be held accordingly and addition of Rs. 1,73,77.481/- may kindly be deleted. II. Grounds No. 6 to 11 pertains to the disallowance of interest of Rs. 28,27,141/-. The appellant had earned gross interest of Rs. 46,36,912/- on FD and had incurred Rs. 28,27,141/…

Shyam Sunder Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-05, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1611/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

…in the impugned Assessment Years where the assessee could have used the cash, explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessed was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessed must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely…

Shyam Sunder Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1610/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

…in the impugned Assessment Years where the assessee could have used the cash, explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessed was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessed must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely…

Shyam Sunder Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1609/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

…in the impugned Assessment Years where the assessee could have used the cash, explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessed was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessed must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely…

Shyam Sunder Lal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-5, New Delhi

In the result, all the captioned four appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1608/DEL/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri H.K. Choudhary, CIT-DR

…in the impugned Assessment Years where the assessee could have used the cash, explanation of the assessee cannot be discarded or brushed aside lightly. 15. Similar view was taken by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36. The relevant findings of the Hon'ble High Court read as under: “16. This cash flow statement furnished by the assessed was rejected by the Assessing Officer which is on the basis of suspicion that the assessed must have spent the amount for some other purposes. The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely…

Jugal Kishore Parwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 286/JPR/2022[1986-87]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Nov 2022AY 1986-87
For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 273(2)(b)Section 282

…1 JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL VS ITO, WARD 4(5), JAIPUR 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. 286 to 291/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 1986-87, 1987-88, 1989-90 & 1992-93 cuke Shri Jugal Kishore Parwal The ITO Flat No. 601, Abhinandan Apartments, Vs. Ward – 4(5) A-9, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHNPP 7666 F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee b…

Shanmugam Ethiraj, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw1(4), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 822/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. G.Johnson, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 05.04.2022
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 234BSection 69Section 69A

…wal for some other purposes without bringing on record any evidence to support his findings. In this regard, the learned A.R relied upon certain judicial precedents, including decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36(Del). 7. The learned DR, on the other hand, supporting order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that the Assessing Officer is very fair, inasmuch as whenever the assessee could explained cash deposits out of previous withdrawals, the Assessing Officer has accepted explanation, however in respect of cash deposits beyond certain dates, the Assessin…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Alchem International Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2825/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: Shri [Dr.] Rakesh Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh [CIT] - D. R
Section 6(3)(ii)Section 69C

…ram Imani vs. DCIT(Inv) Mumbai 2008 24 SOT 541 (vi) CIT vs. Moulali Kumar Shah 2008 307 ITR 137(Guj) (vii) DCIT vs M Aja Bahu (ITAT Hyderabad Bench - ITA Nos 1755,1756 &1757/Hyd/2012 (viii) CIT vs. S.M.Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del) (ix) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del) (x) CIT vs. Anil Bhalla 322 ITR 191 (Delhi Court) (xi) ACIT vs. Satyapal Wassan 295 ITR (AT) 352 (Jabalpur) (xii) CIT vs. Gian Gupta (Delhi High Court) ITA No.955/2011 dated8.5.2014. 13.14 Mr. RP Yadav has stated that the seized documents were the proforma accounts maintained by his part time accountants for limited purpose of performance of…

Anil Kumar Sharma, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 7723/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Anil Kumar Sharma, Vs. Acit, E-549, 2Nd Floor, Gk-Ii, Circle-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abnps4195C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Satyendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Satyendra Kumar ChaturvediFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr.DR
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

…account of cash deposit in the bank account can be made. He accordingly submitted that the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the addition of rs.4 lakh on presumption basis should be deleted. He also relied on the following decisions:- 4 (i) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 (Del); (ii) ITO vs. Deepali Sehgal, ITA No.5660/Del/2012; (iii) Rajinder Singh vs. ACIT, ITA No.1439/Del/2017; and (iv) DCIT vs. Smt. Veena Awasthi, ITA No.215/LKW/16. 6. The ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). 7. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and th…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…—Findings 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” 7.4 Also refer CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17 19 ITA No. 10-JP-2021 Rameshwar Prasad Shringi vs. Pr. CIT, Udaipur Read held “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 no…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…roved. Suspicion 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 BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO 26 ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ Sh. Satya Narayan Bairwa Vs ITO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 5. Hence in view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position entire addition may kindly be deleted in full. G…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…roved. Suspicion 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 BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO 26 ITA 867 & 869/JP/2018_ Sh. Satya Narayan Bairwa Vs ITO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 5. Hence in view of the above facts, circumstances and legal position entire addition may kindly be deleted in full. G…

Smt. Parminder Kaur, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, 3(3), Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 643/ASR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar16 Aug 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Laliet Kumar & Dr. M. L. Meena

Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 643/AMR/2017 Assessment Years: 2009-10 Vs PARMINDER KAUR w/o Sh. ITO-III(3), Jalandar . SATNAM SINGH 868, Krishna Nagar, Near Aarti Chownk, Ludhiana. [PAN: ACCPK1155A] (Respendent) (Appellant) Appellant by Sh. Sudhir Sehgal Adv Respondent by Sh. Rahul Dhawan, CIT-DR and J S KHALO CIT DR Date of hearing 12.7.2021 Date of 16.08.2021 pronouncement Order LALIET KUMAR JM Present appeal was filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the s…

Smt. Ruksana, Jhalawar vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

ITA 192/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 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), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234

…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 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. 8. Blind Estimation of other cities turnover: The ld. AO estimated the other cities sales at Rs.12,00,000/- when admittedly there was evidence only of Rs.1,03,000/-(50,000/-+50,0…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 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)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…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 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. 9. No provisions has been applied by the ld. AO: The ld. AO made the addition on account of undisclosed income from other sources but he has not invoked or applied any provisions…

Roop Kumar Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 386/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…oborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 65…

Shri Basant Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 385/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…oborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 65…

Pankaj Bansal, Gurgaon vs. Pr, CIT (Central), Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 384/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…oborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 65…

Abha Bansal, Gurgaon vs. PCIT, Central, Gurgaon

In the result, ITA.No.383/Del

ITA 383/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Kant

For Appellant: And Shri Lalit Mohan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 263

…oborative evidence found from the possession of the assessee, cannot form the basis for making the addition. He has relied upon Judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cases of CIT vs., D.K. Gupta [2009] 308 ITR 230 (Del.) and CIT vs., Kulwant Rai [2007] 291 ITR 36 (Del.). He has submitted that Section 65A of the Indian Evidence Act provides for special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic records. It provides that the contents of electronic records may be proved in accordance with the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that Section 65…

Dheeraj Thakran, New Delhi vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 2761/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Dheeraj Thakran, Vs Ito, C/O Nagesh Bhel & Co., Cas, Ward-1(4), 21/25, Moti Nagar, Hsiidc Building, New Delhi. Udyog Vihar-V, Gurgaon. Pan: Aewpt8543B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.05.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.05.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bhopal Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 24Section 80C

…themselves with what the assessee did with that money, i.e., whether he had kept the same in his house or utilised the services of a bank by depositing the same.” 13. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Del), the ld. counsel drew the attention of the Bench to the following paragraphs:- 11 “The orders of Assessing Officer as well as Commissioner of Income Tax are completely silent as to for what purpose the earlier withdrawals would have been spent. As per the cash book maintained by the assessed, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was being spent for househo…