How many judgments cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.?

897 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 133(6), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

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 367,154 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 68 Section 143(3)Section 133(6)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor share capital and share premium paper company share application money addition u/s 68 addition under section 68 genuineness of the transaction section 131 section 133(6)entry operator unexplained cash credit

Judgments citing CIT v. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd.

M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 5710/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2017AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2000-01 Vs. The Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. M/S. R.P. Singh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., 382, Bhera Enclave Pachim Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan : Aaacr5778B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By S/Sh. J.S. Kochar & U.S. Kochar, Advocates. Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 14.08.2012, For Assessment Year 2000-01 Raising The Following Grounds : 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Law By Confirming The Addition Of Rs.13,90,000/- Received As Share Application Money, Despite The Fact That Out Of A Total Of 29 Share Applicants. I. 19 Applicants Whose Aggregate Investments Were Rs.10,15,000 Were Produced Before The A.O. & They Confirmed Their Investments. Ii. 2 Applicants With Aggregate Investments Of Rs.90,000 Had Since Died & Their Death Certificates Were Filed. Iii. Request Was Made To The Assessing Officer To Issue Summons U/S 131 To 4 Applicants With Aggregate Investment

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…igh Court in para 6 of the judgment referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT versus Sophia Finance Ltd. ( 1994) 205 ITR 98 (Del) (FB) and decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Private Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein it is observed that the assessee had given names and address of the alleged creditors and said creditors were income tax assessees and if the assessee could not produce the parties or did not attend in response to summons issued under section 131 of the Act, in the circumstances the assessee could not do anything further and Tribunal…

M/S. Adhar Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 228/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack08 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar Patra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 68

…of Rs.7 lakhs and Shri Harish Chandra Mohanty of Rs.7 lakhs which was received by the assessee company through banking channel. He Asse ssment Year :20 11- 12 relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt.Ltd.,159 ITR 78 (SC), wherein, it was held that if the assessee had given names and address of the alleged creditors, and it was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees, their index number was in the file of the Revenue, the Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance of the assessee, did not pursu…

M/S. Gay Pictures Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5221/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…n response to the notice u/s 131, it is not the duty to enforce the said parties by the assessee and make them present before the Assessing Officer. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Ltd. 159 ITR 78 where the necessary observations in para 13 and 15 are as under:- “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 income-tax assessees. Their index number was in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under s. 131 at the instance…

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)

…itted otherwise he could have made observation on the same and not speak a single word on the same. The assessee thus, duly discharged the initial burden lay upon it, to which extent only it was responsible, as held earlier in CIT vs. Orissa Credit Corp. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) and recently referred in CIT vs P. Mohan Kala 291 ITR 279 (SC). 35 M/s.Tirupati College of Technical Education Society vs LD. CIT( Exemption), Jaipur Thus identity, geneuiness and creditworthiness of the person stood established beyond doubt only due to the wrong dissatisfaction of the AO it cannot be denied when they have not brought on re…

Speco Tech Roofing and Celling System Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. DCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 1418/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Speco Tech Roofing & Celling Vs Dcit, System Pvt. Ltd., C/O Bhati Central Circle-Ii, Wadhwa & Co., Cas, 5N/1A, First Faridabad Floor, Near Mcf Mayor Office, B.K. Chowk, Nit Faridabad, Haryana-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aajcs7152F Assessee By : Sh. K. C. Singhal, Ar Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.02.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 08.01.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Faridabad.

For Appellant: Sh. K. C. Singhal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, DR

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 68

…. 1167/Del/2015 order dated 11.12.2015 " Signature Hotels (P) Ltd. Vs ITO 338 ITR 51 (Del.) " CIT Vs Atul Jain 299 ITR 383 (Del.) " CIT Vs Insecticides (India) Ltd. 357 ITR 330 (Del.) " ITO Vs Lakhmani Mewal Das 103 ITR 437 (SC) " CIT Vs Orissa Corp. (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) " Kishinchand Chellaram Vs CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 10. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and further submitted that the assessee was given numerous opportunity to produce Principal Officer/ relevant person of the investor companies but the onus cast upon the assessee was not discharged. It…

Shri Sachin Kapoor, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4577/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, CA & ShFor Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…erved or they failed to attend before the Assessing Officer, cannot be a ground to treat the loans taken by the assessee from those creditors as non-genuine in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation [1986] 159 ITR 78. In the said decision the Supreme Court has observed that when the assessee furnishes names and addresses of the alleged creditors and the GIR numbers, the burden shifts to the Department to establish the Revenue's case and in order to sustain the addition the Revenue has to pursue the enquiry and to establish the lack of creditworthiness and m…

Sh. Vikramjit Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 2955/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Wadhwa, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 68

…dit worthiness and genuineness of the transactions since the ld. AO did not seek any further details regarding the same. 3.3 That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on fact by not considering the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78, wherein it was held that the onus of the assessee is discharged once he files confirmation from the creditors along with their GIR. 4. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not admitting the additional evidence filed by the appellant u/r 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. That the ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in obse…

Esprit Finco Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 1834/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

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

…ause they do not chose to reply an adverse conclusion has been drawn against the assessee which is against all accepted principles of law. The said proposition it was submitted is supported by the decision of CIT, Orissa vs Orissa Corporation Pvt.Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC). 5.2. It was also submitted that despite having the Remand Report before him the CIT(A) also proceeded to conclude the issue in haste against the assessee referring Page 8 of 19 I.T.A .No.-1834/Del/2015 to facts which are not relatable to the present case. Accordingly, it was argued that the impugned order also fortifies the fact that the…

Shri Anil Lakhanlal Malviya, Nagpur vs. Dy.CIT- 1, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 54/NAG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur09 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe

Section 133(6)Section 234B

…1 ITA No. 54/Nag/2015. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER.. I.T.A. No. 54/Nag/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11. Shri Anil Lakhanlal Malviya, Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Nagpur. Vs. Circle-1, Nagpur. PAN ABWPM4662P. Appellant. Respondent. Appellant by : Shri Kapil Hirani. Respondent by : Shri A.R. Ninawe. Date of Hearing : 25-11-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 9th January, 2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(Appeals)-I, Nagpur da…

Pck Metals P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 13, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed for statical purpose

ITA 259/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Pawan Singhआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.259/Mum/2015,"नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 M/S. Pck Metals Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Cc-13, बनाम Shop No.1, Kushal Bhavan, Mumbai. 65, 5Th Kumbharwada, Vs. Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aadcp8553Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar राज"व ओर से / Revenue By : Ms. Anukrishan Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Naresh KumarFor Respondent: Ms. AnuKrishan Aggarwal

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 53Section 68

…e to the parties for their confirmation, the AO not issued any notice to the parties. The addition was made on the basis of pre-determined mind. The Ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (159 ITR 78 (SC) and further on the decision of Gujarat High Court in DCIT vs. Rohini Builders (256 ITR 0360). On the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue supported the order of authorities below. 7. We have considered the rival contention of the parties and gone through the orders of authorities below. The AO while framing the assessment observed that assessee…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1527/KOL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

…dance with law and our conclusion is based on relevant material, cogent and positive evidence produced and furnished by the assessee. Our view is squarely covered and supported by the Supreme Court decision in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corpn. (P.) Ltd. [1986] 159 ITR 78 wherein it was held as under:— "In this case the respondent 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 assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the respo…

DCIT, Circle - 10, Kolkata vs. M/S. Veda Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1064/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rabin Chaudhury, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT 11(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Simplex Castings Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2472/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Chand

Section 143(3)

…erefore, the version of assessee has been merely disbelieved without any adverse evidence. In the course of hearing, reliance has been placed on the following judgments :- (1) CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull , 87 ITR 349 (SC) (2) Anis Ahmad & Sons v. CIT & Anr.,297 ITR 441(SC) (3) Jethabhai Hirji & Jethabhai Ramdas v. CIT, 120 ITR 792 (Bom) (4) CIT v. M/s. Nikunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., ITXA No.5604 of 2010 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR appearing for the Revenue has supported the order of Assessing Officer and in particular, has referred to the Remand report furnished by the Assessing Officer to CIT(A), c…

Simplex Casting Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT(OSD)-3(1), Mumbai

ITA 1562/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Gosain: (A.Y : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri S.C. TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Kumar Chand

Section 143(3)

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 15(3), Mumbai

ITA 800/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.800/Mum/2012 & 6314/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09) Swastik Realtors The Assistant बनाम/ 312, Swastik Disha Commissioner Of Income V. Corporate Park , Kohinoor Tax – 15(3), Textile Printing Compound Matru Mandir I T Office Opp. Shreyas Cinema, Lbs Nana Chowk Marg, Ghatkopar(W) Grant Road Mumbai-400 086 Mumbai. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Abafs2576A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

…The assessee relied upon decision of Orient Trading Company Limited v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723(Bom. HC) that the tax-payer has not to prove the source of source of loan. The assessee also relied upon decision of CIT v. Orissa Corporation Private Limited (1986) 159 ITR 78(SC) and submitted that once loan confirmations are filed , the burden of the assessee is discharged. The assessee submitted that the sources of loan stood explained. The assessee relied upon decision of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360(Guj. HC), CIT v. ABT Limited (2015) 370 ITR 159(Mad.HC), CIT v. Kapoor Chand Magnesh Chand(2003) 218 Ta…

Swastik Realtors, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T.15(3), Mumbai

ITA 6314/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap

Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)

ACIT, Circle - 1, Asansol vs. Burnpur Cement Ltd., Asansol

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/KOL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.28/Kol/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit, Circle-I, Lower Vs. Brunpur Cement Ltd., 141, Chelidanga, Asansol-4 Cement House, Saradapally, Ashok Nagar, Asansol, District-Burdwan- 713304 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacca 1999 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Niraj Kumar Cit Dr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.M.Surana Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 26/08/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per M.Balaganesh, Am This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Cit(A), Asansol, In Appeal No.296/Cit(A)/Asl/R-I/Asl/10-11 Dated 31.10.2011 Passed Against The Order Of Assessment Framed U/S.144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri S.M.Surana AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Kumar CIT DR

Section 144

…purchases, copy of bills including confirmation and details of addresses and PAN of the said party before the ld AO. The assessee placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd reported in (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC) to asset that no addition can be made merely on the ground that a creditor had failed to reply to a notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. The ld CITA held that the payments made to M/s Mittal Polypacks Pvt Ltd to the tune of Rs. 75,21,785/- has been accepted by the ld AO and thereby the identity and genuinity of the creditors has been established. Th…

M/S. Scantech India Pvt. Ltd. (Presently Known As Teracom Ltd.), New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1651/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh K. Jagia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramanjaneyula, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

…were been pointed out. Reliance is placed on the following decisions : (i). CIT vs. Rice India Exports Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 999/10 dated 03.08.10)(Delhi High Court. (ii). CIT vs. Fancy Internation, 168 Taxman 183 (Delhi H.C.) (iii). Anis Ahmad & Sons vs. CIT, 297 ITR 441 (SC) (iv). ITO vs. Raees Garments (ITA No. 997/Del./07(ITAT) (v). CIT vs. Winner Constructions Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 796/2011 dated 03.05.12)(Delhi High Court. 8 ITA No.2029/Del./2009 & 1651/Del./2012 (vi). Continental Carbon India Ltd. vs. ITO, ITAT, Delhi dated 31.10.2011 (ITA No. 5269 to 5271/Del./2010) He, therefore, urged for deletion of imp…

M/S Scantec (India) Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2029/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Yogesh K. Jagia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. B. Ramanjaneyula, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

K.B. J Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6365/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 K.B.J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer-6(2)(1) 66/66, Kbj Plaza, Mumbai बनाम/ Zaveri Bazar, Vs. Mumbai-400002 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aacck8066F "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Hari Raheja Shri A. Ramachandran-Dr राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 28/07/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order:

Section 131Section 68

…to make the impugned addition on the ground that in some case some summons issued were returned unserved and in some case summons though served but there was no compliance. In this connection, it may be mentioned that in the case of CIT v. Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78, the Honble Court has held that when the assessed borrows the loan and if an assessed gives names and 17 M/s K.B. J. Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. address of the creditors, who are assessed to tax and full particulars is furnished then the assessed has discharged the duty. If the Revenue merely issues summons Under Section 131 and does not pursue the matte…