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

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…e and corroborative 15 of evidence Secon d part 7 (2008) 307 ITR The addition made by the AO Para 6 63-66 137(Guj) CIT vs. toward “on money” on the basis of Maulik Kumar K seized paper along without any Shah corroborative evidence accnot be sustained 8 (2007) 291 ITR 36 No addition can be made based on Para 67-70 (Delhi) CIT v. surmises and gues work 12 & Kulwant Rai 13 9 (2007) 289 ITR 509 Seized docuemnts are not a Para 71-75 ACIT v. Kences conclusive proof to arrive at 16 & Foundation P. Ltd. undisclosed income 17 10 (2009) 308 ITR 230 If there is no corroborative or Para 3 76-78 (Del) CIT v. D.K. direct evide…

Sangeet Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-62(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 121/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. T. S. Kapoorita No. 121/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Sangeet Gupta, Vs Income Tax Officer, L/H Shri Purshottam Dass, A-38, Ward-62(4), Shankar Garden, Vikas Puri, New Delhi New Delhi-110018 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afypd2762F Assessee By : Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. & Sh. Pranshu Singhal, Ca Revenue By : Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2019 Order This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, New Delhi Dated 30.08.2018. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Legal As Well As Merits Of The Additions Sustained By Ld. Cit(A) But During The Course Of Proceedings, The Ld. Ar Did Not Argue Anything On The Legal Issues & On Merits There Is Only One Addition Of Rs.2,80,000/- Which The Assessing Officer Had Made On Account Of Deposits In The Bank.

For Appellant: Smt. Rano Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

…ssessee had utilized the withdrawals to some other specific purposes. Reliance in this respect was placed on the following decisions: " Sr. Venkata Ratnam Vs CIT (1981) 127 ITR 807 " ACIT Vs Baldev Raj Charla and Others 121 TTJ 366 " CIT Vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 291 ITR 36 " DCIT Vs Shri Nikhil Nanda in " M/s Moongipa Investment Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No. 2605/Del/2007 " Anil Gupta Vs ITO in ITA No. 5645/Del/2013 4. The ld. Departmental Representative, on the other hand, relied on the order of authorities below. 5. I have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. It is undisputed fact…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…the place of reality. In this respect he relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (2) R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), (3) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). (4) CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). (5) CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). 15 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers That it is an admitted fact in this case as is appearing on proper appreciation of the paper that the loose paper does not reflect the date of transaction, nature of transaction, the person in whose writing it was noted,…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…the place of reality. In this respect he relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (2) R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), (3) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). (4) CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). (5) CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). 15 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers That it is an admitted fact in this case as is appearing on proper appreciation of the paper that the loose paper does not reflect the date of transaction, nature of transaction, the person in whose writing it was noted,…

Bajrang Singh Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1013/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244A

…ere is no reason to interfere with the same— No substantial question of law arises—CIT vs. Pradeep Shantaram Padgaonkar (1983) 143 ITR 785 (MP) relied on” 16 Shri Bajrang Singh Choudhary vs. ITO, Ward- 7(2), Jaipur . 8.2 Also refer CIT vs Kulwant Rai (2007) 210 CTR 380 (Delhi) para 16-17 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 not available with the assessee—Tribunal has found that the withdrawals…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 132/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 131/BIL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 130/BIL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 128/BIL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

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

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…titute a valid, contract because both the parties have to invariably execute and sign such document to make such agreement/ contract authentic, since a contract without consent between the parties is ab initio void. In CIT v. Kulwant Rai [2007] 163 Taxman 585/291 ITR 36 (Delhi) the facts of the case before the HC were that the appellant had not signed the agreement in question and since the appellant had not signed the agreement, it was held by the Del. HC that no liability could be attributed qua that agreement towards the appellant since he was not a party to the agreement till he had signed the same. The mere…

Sh. Surya Kant Jaipuria, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 6781/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble, Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

…0/- despite the fact that the said cash actually belongs to JLSSPL and relied upon the decisions of ITO vs. C Atchaiah – 218 ITR 239 (SC), CIT vs. Nayan Engg Works – 248 ITR 596 (Mad.), S.R. Venkat Raman vs. CIT – 127 ITR 807 (Kar) and CIT vs. Kulwant Rai – 291 ITR 36 (Del.). 4 6. However, on the other hand, the ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the assessee has failed to discharge the onus to explain the cash amount, addition has been rightly made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT (A) and relied upon the order passed by the ld. CIT (…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…td. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). Kindly refer a very recent decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held: cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and they confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of assessee to prove genuineness. However capacity of the lender to advancement money to assessee was not a matter which t…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)

…td. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). 18.1 Kindly refer decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held: cash credit- burden of proof- identity of the creditors established and they confirmed the credit. This discharged the burden of assessee to prove genuineness. However capacity of the lender to advancement money to assessee was not a matter which the assesse…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Shri Baljeet, Jhajjar

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4416/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Baljeet S/O Sh. Jage Ram, Ward-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Vpo Lowakhurd, Rohtak (Haryana) Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar Haryana (Pan: Bbdp84909G) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Piyush Kr. Kamal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. JAIN, SR. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

…that once cash deposits are duly explained from the withdrawals of the bank account, no adverse inference can be validly drawn and placed reliance on various case laws including the following:- i) 121 TTJ 366 (Del.) ACIT vs. Baldev Raj Charla & Ors. ii) 291 ITR 36 (Del.) CIT vs. Kulwant Rai. 7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). I find that Ld. First Appellate Authority has elaborately discussed the issues in dispute by considering the submissions of the assessee and adjudicated the issues as under:- “Regarding cash deposits of R…

Sri Kiran Bhagat, Uttar Dinajpur vs. JCIT, R-2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, ( on all the grounds), is

ITA 1325/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1325/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2011-2012) Sri Kiran Bhagat, Vs. Jcit, Range-2, Jalpaiguri Prop. Bishal Enterprise, Dist- Uttar Dinajpur, Pin-733 202 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ajepb 1680 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G.Hukunga, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2011-2012, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Jalpaiguri In Appeal No.02/Jal/Cit(A)/Jal/2014-15, Dated 28.04.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 17.02.2014. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed The Return Of Income On 30.02.2012 Showing Total Income At Rs.3,60,240/- . The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment After Making Addition Of Rs.5,12,186/- On Account Of Bogus Expenditure ( Discount Allowed By The Assessee Was Treated By The Ao As Bogus Expenditure). During The Course Of Hearing While Verifying The Claim Of Expenditure In The Profit & Loss Account Of Expenditure Of Rs.14,22,455/- Under The Head “Discount”. The Assessee

For Appellant: Shri Subhash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G.Hukunga, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…e the commission payment was established by way of agreement, PAN Card, Voter ID, name and address of the recipients. These payments were made for the purpose of business. Ld. AR for the assessee has also relied on the following judgments :- i) Kulwant Rai, 291 ITR 36 : “It is well-settled legal position in respect of income-tax assessment proceeding that although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply to income-tax proceedings, assessments cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Reference in this respect may be made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotto…

Morgan Ventures Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeal stands allowed

ITA 1176/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 143(2)

…work. The Ld. AR placed his reliance upon the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd.,Vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 and the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kulwant Rai reported in 291 ITR 36. 7. On the contrary the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below. The Ld.DR placed his reliance on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Rajnik and Co. Vs. ACIT reported in 251 ITR 561. 8. We have produced the orders of the authorities below as well as the documents filed by the assessee in the paper book, and the j…

M/S. Minda Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5251/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

…re and disallowed on adhoc basis. The AO did not even allow depreciation on such expenses. When the assessee went in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai reported at 291 ITR 36, deleted the addition by holding that there was no basis to make the addition. Accordingly, finding no merits in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue, we dismiss ground No. 5. 28. Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1 of Revenue for A.Y 2007-08 are related to the direction of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he restricted the addition u/s 14A of the Act to Rs. 2 lakh…

M/S Minda Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed whereas the appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 1506/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CA
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 43(1)

…re and disallowed on adhoc basis. The AO did not even allow depreciation on such expenses. When the assessee went in first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kulwant Rai reported at 291 ITR 36, deleted the addition by holding that there was no basis to make the addition. Accordingly, finding no merits in the ground of appeal raised by the Revenue, we dismiss ground No. 5. 28. Ground Nos. 6 and 6.1 of Revenue for A.Y 2007-08 are related to the direction of the ld. CIT(A) wherein he restricted the addition u/s 14A of the Act to Rs. 2 lakh…

Sh. Yati Garg, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 1568/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Mar 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra : & Shri Kuldip Singh:A.Y. 2009-10 Yati Garg, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 639, Rishi Nagar, Ward 25(2), New Delhi. Rani Bagh, Delhi-110034. Pan: Aiapg 1319 A ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : Shri Sumit Goel Ca Respondent By : Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Sumit Goel CAFor Respondent: Shri V.R. Sonbhadra Sr. DR
Section 234Section 44Section 68

…ground no. 4 and the ld. DR has not placed any serious objection in this regard. Apropos ground no.4, the AR placed reliance on various decisions including decision of Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36 (Den; decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Shri Kamal Kumar Bhola in ITA No. 578112010 dated 28.09.2011; decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Corut in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajeev Shukla 296 ITR 743 and decision of IT AT Delhi 'C' Bench in ITA No.41831De1l2010 dated 12.11.2010. On the basi…