CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

159 ITR 78Supreme Court of India1986#53 most cited

What is CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

When an assessee provides the identity and address of a creditor or investor for a cash credit or share capital under Section 68, the burden shifts to the Department to establish lack of genuineness or creditworthiness, requiring it to conduct further inquiries; mere non-compliance by third parties to summons cannot be the sole basis for an adverse inference against the assessee.

897

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,164 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orissa Corporation · 159 ITR 78 · Section 68 · unexplained cash credit · burden of proof · creditworthiness of creditor · genuineness of transaction · non-compliance of summons · share capital · Section 131 · Section 133(6) · adverse inference

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147Section 131Section 148Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcecreditworthiness of the creditorshare capital and share premiumpaper companyshare application moneyaddition u/s 68addition under section 68genuineness of the transactionsection 131section 133(6)entry operatorunexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Superb Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 54/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms. Suchitra Kambleacit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit Vs Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-3 Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 New Delhi Lajwanti Garden New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent) Superb Developers (P) Ltd. Vs Dcit Wz-183, F. F. Lance No. 4 Central Circle-3 Lajwanti Garden New Delhi New Delhi Aaics4437L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 133Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…wn and in that situation non compliance of summons cannot lead to burden being placed on the assessee to produce those person. On the non compliance of the summons taken ground to take adverse view, the assessee relied on judgment of Anis Ahmed & Sons vs. CIT 297 ITR 441 (SC). Further reliance were also placed on CIT vs. WinstralPetrochemicals Ltd. (supra). The assessee dealt with the objection of the Assessing Officer that assessee failed to produce the directors of the share applicant companies. Special reference was made by the Assessing Officer that in case of private limited companies the onus to produce the…

M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4991/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…ed from the alleged share subscribers in the garb of share application money, as no documentary evidence goes to suggest such an adverse inferences to be drawn against the assessee. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., 159 ITR 78, it has been held as under : “The assessee produced before the Income- tax Officer letters of confirmation, the discharged Hundis and particulars of the different creditors general index numbers were with the Income-tax Department. Attempts had been made to bring those creditors therefore the Income-tax Officer by issue of notices under Section 1…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Randeep Investment Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4853/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

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

Section 133Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234Section 68

…ed from the alleged share subscribers in the garb of share application money, as no documentary evidence goes to suggest such an adverse inferences to be drawn against the assessee. In the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court, CIT vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., 159 ITR 78, it has been held as under : “The assessee produced before the Income- tax Officer letters of confirmation, the discharged Hundis and particulars of the different creditors general index numbers were with the Income-tax Department. Attempts had been made to bring those creditors therefore the Income-tax Officer by issue of notices under Section 1…

Shri Mujaffar Hussen, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 290/JPR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Condonation Of The Short Delay In Submission Of The Appeal.’’

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai, DCIT - DR
Section 44ASection 68

…o. 1542/2012 date of order 15.01.2016 that appellant not obliged to prove source of source of the unsecured loan creditor. The burden is to prove source of the credit only- ITIAT. II. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) held as follows:- 9 Shri Mujaffar Hussen vs ITO, Ward- 7(2) Jaipur “13. In this case, the appellant had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax appellants. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notic…

DCIT 25(1), Mumbai vs. Yrv International, Mumbai

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

ITA 1414/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri B.R.Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…charged, if he proves the three main ingredients viz., (i) identity of the creditor; (ii) the genuineness of the transaction and (iii) genuineness of transactions. (a) CIT Vs. Sanghamitra Bharali (2014)(361 ITR 481)(Gau) (b) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P Ltd (159 ITR 78)(SC) (c) CIT Vs. Varinderrawley (2014)(366 ITR 232)(P & H) (d) Namichand Kothari Vs. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3 M/s. YRV International (e) CIT Vs. Smt. Sushiladevi Khdaria (2009)(319 ITR ….) (f) ITO vs. Anant Shelters (P) Ltd (2012)(51 SOT 234) 5. The Ld CIT(A) also took support of decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Rus…

ACIT 4(3)(1), Nagpur vs. Kenhans Shares & Stocks P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5157/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Pawan Singhacit-4(3)(1), M/S Kenhans Shares & Stocks Pvt. Room No. 649, 6Th Floor, Ltd., 302A Poonam Chambers, 3Rd Floor, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-20 Mumbai-400018. Pan: Aadck1171C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen(Dr) Respondent By : None Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh;

For Appellant: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…thorities have only entertained presumption that they have provided accommodation entries. We have seen that the assessee has discharged the onus placed upon it and hence, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd (159 ITR 78) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hospitalities (P) Ltd (supra), the assessee cannot be penalized for the failure of the AO to discharge the burden shifted upon him. Accordingly we are of the view that the Ld CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MOTI ADHESIVES P. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 17(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AAACM9114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 26.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

ITA 60/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 153ASection 68

…ely based on this information commented that the assessee does not have any worth. He has not carried out any independent enquiry with respect to the above company. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 and stated that the Ld. AO should have issued summons to the directors of that company to examine the veracity of the claim made by the assessee. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PADMASUNDARA RAO (DECD.) AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS 255 ITR 1478 page No. 153 to state that the decision cited by…

M/S. Taneja Developers Infra. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

ITA 1944/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 153ASection 68

…ely based on this information commented that the assessee does not have any worth. He has not carried out any independent enquiry with respect to the above company. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 and stated that the Ld. AO should have issued summons to the directors of that company to examine the veracity of the claim made by the assessee. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PADMASUNDARA RAO (DECD.) AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS 255 ITR 1478 page No. 153 to state that the decision cited by…

M/S. Taneja Developers Infra. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

ITA 1943/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 153ASection 68

…ely based on this information commented that the assessee does not have any worth. He has not carried out any independent enquiry with respect to the above company. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 and stated that the Ld. AO should have issued summons to the directors of that company to examine the veracity of the claim made by the assessee. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PADMASUNDARA RAO (DECD.) AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS 255 ITR 1478 page No. 153 to state that the decision cited by…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Taneja Developers & Infra Ltd., New Delhi

In the result all the six appeals in the case of two assesses preferred by the assessee and Ld AO are dismissed

ITA 1907/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Varma, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 133ASection 143Section 153ASection 68

…ely based on this information commented that the assessee does not have any worth. He has not carried out any independent enquiry with respect to the above company. He further referred to the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78 and stated that the Ld. AO should have issued summons to the directors of that company to examine the veracity of the claim made by the assessee. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PADMASUNDARA RAO (DECD.) AND OTHERS VS.STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS 255 ITR 1478 page No. 153 to state that the decision cited by…

The ITO, Ward - 3(2)(2), Surat vs. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Bhadani, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross

ITA 585/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A No.585/Ahd/2016/Srt & Co. No. 63/Ahd/2016/Srt िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year :2011-12 1. Income Tax Officer, Vs 1. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat Bhadani, House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R Vs 2. Shri Popatbhai Ranchhodbhai 2.Income Tax Officer, Bhadani, Ward- 3(2)(2) Surat House No.12, Bhumi Row House, Ved Road Surat 395008 Pan:Adspb6681R अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Respondent: 2. Ground No. 1 to 4 states that Ld. CIT (A) erred in
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 68

…has discharged onus cast u/s.68 of the Act by filing of acknowledgement of return of income, PAN, copy of balance sheet, capital account, copy of bank accounts. The assessee has also placed reliance in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC)/ 25 Taxman 80(SC) DCIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (Guj.)/ [2003] 127 Taxman 523 (Guj), CIT v. Metachem Industries [2000] 245 ITR 160 (MP):161 CTR 444 (MP): [2001] 116 Taxman 572 (MP), Nemichand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 264 ITR 254/ 136 Taxman 213 (Gauhati), CIT v. Ranchhod Jivabhai Nakhava [2012] 81 CCH 193 Guj-HC Diamond Produc…

ITO, WD-6(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Wiz Tech Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 1162/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jun 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 68

…o been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. The main plank on which the AO made the addition was because the directors of the share subscribers did not turn up before him. In such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Orissa Corpn. (P) Ltd. (supra) 159 ITR 78 and the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of Dy. CIT v. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 /[2003] 127 Taxman 523 , has held that onus of the assessee (in whose books of account credit appears) stands fully discharged if the identity of the creditor is established and actual receipt of money from such creditor is proved. In case, the Assessi…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 178/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 148

…m and requests the AO to issue summons u/s 131 of the Act for their attendance, it is the duty of the AO to issue such summons, failing which the addition would get deleted. It is also held in CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non- production of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. (v) Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) where a credit is shown to have come from a person other than the assessee, there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it h…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Land Mark Dilsay P Ltd, Jaipur

Appeals are dismissed in limine but without any order as to costs

ITA 177/JPR/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2018AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena (JCIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(1)Section 148

…m and requests the AO to issue summons u/s 131 of the Act for their attendance, it is the duty of the AO to issue such summons, failing which the addition would get deleted. It is also held in CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 158 ITR 78 (SC) and Anis Ahmed 297 ITR 441 (SC) that mere non-production of the lender/shareholder cannot be a ground for making addition u/s 68 of the Act. (v) Similarly as held in the case of CIT v. Metachem Industries (2000) 245 ITR 160 (MP) where a credit is shown to have come from a person other than the assessee, there is no further responsibility of the assessee to show that it ha…

ITO 31(1)(5), Mumbai vs. Gold Finger Establishment, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Department as well as the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4212/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Vidhyadhar, D.R
Section 133(6)Section 69C

…r Establishment dismissed by Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 4. Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. V/s CIT (1987) 168 JTR 493 (Cal HC) 5. Dy CIT V/s Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360 (CLI]). SLP was also dismissed by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. 6. Anis Ahmed V/s CIT (2008) 297 ITR 441 (SC) 7. CIT V/s U K Shah (1973) 90 ITR 396 (Bom. HC) 8. Add. CIT V/s 1-lanuman Agarwal (1984) 151 ITR 150 (Patna HC) 9. Jhaver Bhai Bihar Lal & Co. v. CIT [1985] 154 ITR (1985] 154 ITR 591/21 Taxman 238 10. CIT vs. Sahibqanj Electric Cables (P) Ltd. 11978115 ITR 4087 Thus, in view of the above discussion and respectfully following the judicial p…

JCIT (OSD), Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Kalamkari Designs (P) Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1310/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Hon’Ble Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A No. 1310/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Jcit(Osd), Circle-11(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aabck 2117 N ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri D.S. Damle, FCA
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ayees and could not direct them to respond to the notice issued by the Department. The assessee also placed reliance on the following decisions in support of its contentions:- a) Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation P Ltd reported in 159 ITR 78 (SC) b) Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs CIT reported in 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) 8 M/s Kalamkari Designs Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr. 2009-10 c) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Currency Investment Co. ltd reported in 241 ITR 494 (Cal) d) Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Korlay Trading…

DCIT 14(3)(2), Mumbai vs. S.D Material Handlers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 137/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri G. Manjunatha, Accoutant Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.C. Omi Ningshen
Section 133(6)

…Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submissions of the assessee and evidence brought on record, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anis Ahmad & Sons v/s CIT, 297 ITR 441. 5. Learned Departmental Representative relied upon the ground raised and observations made by the Assessing Officer. 6. We have heard the learned Departmental Representative and perused material on record. It is evident, during the assessment 4 M/s. S.D. Material proceedings to prove the purchases made of ` 66,92,040, the assessee produced pu…

Priyanka Tikmani, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-33(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed

ITA 2837/KOL/2013[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Apr 2018AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2005-06 Priyanka Tikmani V/S. Income Tax Officer, 2Nd Floor, 10, Lord Ward-33(1),10B, Sinha Road, Kolkat-71 Middleton Row, Kolkata [Pan No.Acxpj 1732B] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri D.P. Baid, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 24-01-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-04-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed:- This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata Dated 05.01.2013. Assessment Was Framed By Ito Ward-33(1), Kolkata U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Vide His Order Dated 29.08.2007 For Assessment Year 2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Assessing Officer Erred In Law As Well S On Fact & Was Not Justified In Adding The Entire Gifts Of Rs.20,00,000/- As Cash Credit U/S. 69 Of The It Act On The Alleged Ground As Your Appellant Had Produced All Documentary Evidences As To The Genuineness, Creditworthiness & Proper Identity Of Each Of The Various Donors Before The Ld. Ao During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding. Similarly The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Also Was Not Justified To Uphold/Sustain The Said Arbitrary Illogical & Or Unjustified Addition Made By The Ld. Ao. 2. That The Ld. Ao As Well As The Ld. Cit(A)-Xix, Kol Were Not Justified In Not Giving Due Cognizance To The Fact Of The Case As Well As The Evidences Produced Before Them. The Ld. Cit(A)-Xx, Kol Was Also Not

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 69

…and he had sold shares and ultimately he had purchased a flat utilizing the sale proceeds of those shares.” Similarly, we also find support and guidance from the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. reported in 159 ITR 78 wherein it was held as under:- “In this case the assessee had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the revenue that the said creditors were the income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the revenue. The revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the asses…

Manji Kanji Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, we uphold the same and thus these grounds raised by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 290/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Apr 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shrig. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 290/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Manji Kanji Patel Ito 22(1)(3) Shop No. 4, N. N. R. No. 406, 4Th Floor, बिधम/ Bhaskarchawl, Kajutekri, Towe Rno., 6, Vashi Vs. Ghatkopar (W), Rly Station Complex, Mumbai-400086. Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400705 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaopp3459N & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1872/Mum/2013 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year:2009-10) Ito 22(1)(3) Manji Kanji Patel R. No. 406, 4Th Floor, Shop No. 4, N. N. बिधम/ Towerno., 6, Vashi Rly Bhaskarchawl, Station Complex, Vashi, Kajutekri, Vs. Navi Mumbai-400705 Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Kirit R. Purohit प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Sh. Suman Kumar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09.01.2018 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 02.04.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Sandeep Gosain: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assesses As Well As Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai Dated 04.12.12Foray 2009-10. Since Both The Appeals Arising Out Of The Same Order & 2. Issues Involved Are Common, Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & A Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. 3. First Of All We Take Up Assessee’S Appeal In Ita No.290/Mum/2013 For Ay 2009-10 For Decision. The Grounds Of Appeal Are Mentioned Herein Below:-

For Appellant: Sh. Kirit R. PurohitFor Respondent: Sh. Suman Kumar
Section 142(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…no, therefore in such a situation, merely non-production of creditors cannot be a sole ground for making additions u/s 68 of the I.T. Act. On this aspect, we draw strength from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anis Ahmad and Sons Vs. CIT(A)297 ITR 441.The Ld. CIT(A) rightly concluded that since all the creditors have duly mentioned their respective PAN Nos., therefore in such situation, the AO could have verified the genuineness from the departmental records and by not doing so, the AO had not discharged its onus. Hence considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present cas…