How many judgments cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala?

525 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. P. Mohanakala come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 115BBE, Section 69C, Section 133(6).

CIT v. P. Mohanakala

291 ITR 278Supreme Court of India2007#125 most cited

What is CIT v. P. Mohanakala authority for?

The Supreme Court emphasized that in the absence of concrete rebuttal by the assessee, circumstantial evidence holds significant weight, applying the doctrine of preponderance of probability, particularly when assessing undisclosed income or unexplained cash credits.

525

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 372,569 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. P. Mohanakala · 291 ITR 278 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 69C · unexplained cash credit · undisclosed income · circumstantial evidence · burden of proof · assessee rebuttal · preponderance of probability · genuineness of transaction

Also reported as

161 Taxmann 169210 CTR 20

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 115BBE Section 69C Section 133(6)Section 148 Section 69A

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditor source of source addition under section 68 addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction share application money entry operator unexplained cash credit principal commissioner of income-tax income-tax officer section 131 section 69c

Judgments citing CIT v. P. Mohanakala

M/S. Ganesh Kumar & Sons HUF, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 1708/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Apr 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Miss Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri C.S. Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…erring to the following decisions, he submitted that the addition made by the A.O and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is justified under the facts and circumstances of the case: i. Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif Vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 [SC] ii CIT Vs. Mohanakala [2007] 291 ITR 278 [SC] iii. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd Vs. CIT [2008] 305 ITR 202 [Del] iv. Bhartesh Jain Vs. DCIT [Del] 483 CTR Vol 201 dated 7.4.2006 v. CIT Vs. Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 15. So far as the arguments of the ld. AR that the A.O has not disposed of the objections raised on reopening of the assessment is concerned, the ld. AR referring to the decisio…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Gravity Systems Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed while the cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 5626/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Mar 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri. P. K. Bansal & Shri K.N. Charry Assessment Year:2004-05

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, D.R

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…llowing decisions, but all these decisions are prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Goel Sons Golden Estate Pvt. Ltd. (supra):- 1. Kale Khan Mohammand Hanif vs. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1 (SC). 2. CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC). 3. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd., vs CIT (2008) 305 ITR 202 (Delhi). 4. Bhartesh Jain vs DCIT (Del) 483 CTR 201 dated 07.04.2006. 5. CIT vs Biju Patnaik 160 ITR 674 23. In view of these facts, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.68.50 lakhs under section 68 of the Act as in…

Asst CIT 21(3), Mumbai vs. Ram Textiles, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3478/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2010-11 Acit-21(3), M/S Ram Textiles, 221, 02Nd Floor, Piramal Kewal Industrial Estate, बनाम/ Chambers, Lalbaug, S.B. Marg, Lower Parel(W) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400013 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती/Assessee) P.A. No. Aakfr4679N

Section 133(6)Section 68

…r, when there was evidence that there were suspicious deposits, made by the assessee and the same were not explained. It was also contended that the parties were not produced by the assessee. Reliance was placed upon the decision in CIT vs P. Mohankala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC), CIT vs Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540 (SC), Kamal Motors vs CIT (2003) 131 taxman 155 (Raj.), Focus Export Pvt. Ltd. (2014) 51 taxman 46 (Del.), CIT vs United Commercial and Industrial Company Pvt. Ltd. 187 ITR 596 (Cal.), etc. 3 M/s Ram Textiles 2.1. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Shashank Dundu, strongly defended the…

Dhanraj Mills P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD)-II Cen RG-7, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3830/MUM/2009[1987-88]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2017AY 1987-88

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhan

Section 271(1)(c)Section 273Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, डी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “D”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एन. के. "धान, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member ITA NOs.3830 & 3833/Mum/2009 Assessment Years: 1987-88 & 1998-99 Dhanraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. ACIT(OSD-II) C/o- Pandya Gandhi & Co. बनाम/ CR-7, Advocates & Solicitors, 4th Floor, Vs. Adore House, Aayakar Bhavan, K. Dubash Marg, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. AAACD5580D ITA NOs.3831 & 3832 /Mum/2009 Asses…

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

…sactions. In support of the finding, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) also relied on the following decisions: 1. Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 305 ITR 202 (Delhi) 2. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P Mohanakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) 3. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease Private Limited, (2012) 342 ITR 169 (Delhi). 2.7 Aggrieved with the above finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the grounds as reproduced above. 3. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. counsel of the ass…

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)

…s available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is required to be formed objectively with reference to the material available on record. Application of mind is the sine qua non for forming the opinion - CIT v. P. Mohanakala [2007] 161 Taxman 169 / 291 ITR 278 (SC). On perusal of assessment order and other evidences it is clear that the AO did not consider various material evidences available on record. 14.3.2 In the Case of CIT v/s Real Time Marketing (P) Ltd 306 ITR 35 (Del) it has been held that “AO made the addition towards unexplained cash credit on the basis that it was the assessee’s money (Rs.…

Allied Blenders and Distillers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2574/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K P DewanFor Respondent: Shri H M Wanare

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

…through cheque, it is wroth nothing that in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801), the Hon‟ble Apex Court has also held that one has to consider all surrounding circumstances for accepting the genuineness of a transaction. Further, in the case of P Mohankala 291 ITR 278, also after considering the entirety of surrounding circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not accepted the genuineness of cash credits even though the same were received through banking channels. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that detailed inquiries by Sales Tax Department and LT. Department revealed that the three worth Rs.…

Allied Blenders and Distillers P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2573/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K P DewanFor Respondent: Shri H M Wanare

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Blenders & Distillers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2447/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K P DewanFor Respondent: Shri H M Wanare

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Allied Blenders & Distillers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 2446/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

For Appellant: Shri K P DewanFor Respondent: Shri H M Wanare

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 234B

Akay Industries P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 748/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.748/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11) M/S Akay Industries P. Ltd., Income Tax Officer – बनाम/ 22A Film Centre, 5(1)(1), V. 2 Nd Floor, 68 Tardeo Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai – 400 034. Mumbai – 400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaaca9228K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sachhidanand Dubey

Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271(1)Section 40A(2)(b)

…the said party nor any evidence in support of actual purchase was put forward by the assessee. The learned CIT(A) relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal (214 ITR 801(SC)) and ITA 748/Mum/2015 7 the case of P Mohankala 291 ITR 278(SC). Thus, the ld. CIT(A) vide appellate order dated 02-12-2014 confirmed the additions of Rs. 23,47,899/- on account of bogus purchases made by the assessee from Mihir Sales Private Limited by the learned A.O. in the assessment order dated 21-03-2013 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the appellate order dated 02-12-2014 passed by th…

ITO, Meerut vs. M/S. Jayanti Prasad Jeevan Lal Jain, Meerut

In the result we confirm the finding of the ld

ITA 227/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiito, Jayanti Prasad Jeevan Lal Jain, Ward-1(3), Sarraf Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Meerut Navjeevan, New Prem Puri, Railways Road, Meerut Pan: Aabcj6694D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR

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

…ading Co. Ltd. (Cal.) 232 ITR 820. (vi) Krishan Kumar Jhanb v/s ITO and Anr (Punjab & Haryana) 17 DTR 249 (vii) M/s Sejai International Ltd v/s CIT Meerut (All.) Appeal No.306 of 2010. (viii) CIT Vs Durga Prasad More, 82 ITR 540 (SC) (ix) CIT Vs P. Mohnakala, 291 ITR 278 (SC) (x) CIT Vs Sumati Dayal, 214, ITR 801 (SC) (xi) ITO Vs Diza Holdings Pvt. Ltd. 255 ITR 573 (Kerla) (xii) CIT Vs Nova Promoters and Finlease Pvt. Ltd. 18 Taxmann 217. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,31,314/- being Page 2 of 9…

Income Tax Officer-Ward-12(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Attire Arts Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Nishant Overseas Pvt. Ltd.), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 2618/KOL/2013[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ime and calling for information under sec. 133(6) did not bring any material on record to establish that the appellant could not prove the identity of the creditors, their credit-worthiness or the genuineness of the transactions. In CIT v. P. Mohankala [2007] 291 ITR 278 (SC), the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that “It is true that the opinion of the Assessing Officer for not accepting the explanation offered by the assessee as not satisfactory is required to be based on proper appreciation of material and other attending circumstances available on record. The opinion of the Assessing Officer is req…

Rinku Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4311/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Ravish Sood(Jm)

Section 133ASection 148Section 68

…nce filed by the assessee. Under these circumstances, in our considered opinion, the addition by invoking the theory of preponderance of probabilities is bad in law. 6.5 Coming to the case laws relied upon by the revenue, in the case of CIT vs. P Mohana Kala 291 ITR 278 (SC), the assessee in that case were receiving gifts from a stranger, who was a common donor. Most of the cheques in that case were drawn on a single bank and it was held unacceptable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, in cases where explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source of the sums found credited in the books is not…

Sh. Kuljit Singh Arora (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2843/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jan 2017AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148

…able to come to the conclusion that any question of law arises. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ITA 2843/Del/2015 AY 2003-04 14. Ld. CIT(A) has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) This judgment does not apply on the facts of this case. In the case of Mohanakala the AO rebutted the evidence filed by the assessee in support of their contentions. The AO came to the conclusion that the gifts are not genuine. No such exercise has been done in this case. That was a case where it was found that the assessee had not discharge…

Dinesh Verma Prop. Advent Enterprises, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2305/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2007-08 Sh. Dinesh Verma Vs. Ito, Ward 1(2) Prop. Advent Enterprises Faridabad 262, Sec 28 Faridabad Pan: Abkpv 8853 B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr.D.R

Section 143(3)

…by the A.O. even during remand proceedings. He relied on the order of the A.O. as well as CIT(A). 5. In reply the Ld.Counsel for the assessee distinguished the judgements relied upon by the Ld.CIT(A) and submitted that, the case of CIT vs. Mohan Kala (S.C.) 291 ITR 278, was on S.68 of the Act. 6. After hearing rival contentions, we find that the First Appellate Authority had at page 16, places his finding on the preponderance of probabilities. The assessee in this case has filed the VAT details of M/s Maa Durga Trading Com from whom the purchases were made. He has also furnished confirmation letters and accoun…

M/S. Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Delhi

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

ITA 4353/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4353/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, A-2/106, Sector-16, Rohini, Ward-5(2), Delhi-110085 Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacck7376A Assessee By : Sh. Vivek Bansal, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.10.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.05.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-36, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Vivek Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 68

…it can be added as income. A reference was made to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court: " Govindaraju Mudaliyar 34 ITR 807 " Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif 50 ITR 1 " Devi Prasad Biswanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 " Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 " P. Mohana Kala 291 ITR 278 9. The ld. CIT(A) also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs Focus Exports Pvt. Ltd. reported at 228 Taxman 88 wherein it has been held that where the 26 Khatri Projects Pvt. Ltd. assessee failed to offer a lucid, reasonable and acceptable explanation regarding the source and nature of credit, th…

Kalsha Builders P.Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 1808/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

…the arrangement of introduction of own money in the garb of share application money. 24 ITA No.7643-2013 & 1808-2015 M/s. Kalsha Builders Pvt . Ltd., 48. Reliance was also placed by CIT(A) on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Mohankakala – 291 ITR 278. Reliance was also placed on the following decisions. i.Rajeev Tandon vs ACIT (164 Taxman 271) (Del J-IC) ii. CIT vs Anil Kumar (292 ITR 552) (Del) iii.D.C.Rastogi vs ACIT (57 ITD 295) (Del) iv. CIT vs Mira S. Khurana (333 fTR 488)(Gujarat HC) v. Yash Pal Goel vs CIT (310 ITR 75)(P&H) 49. In the above cases the AO had made addition for gifts rece…

Kalsha Builders P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 6(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are allowed

ITA 7643/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

Section 143(3)Section 68

Sh. Manju Agarwal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2324/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2004-05 Ms. Manju Agarwal, 14B/23, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1St Floor, Dev Nagar, Karol 33(1), New Delhi Bagh, New Delhi Pan : Adrpa7112P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Deepak Ostwal, Ca Respondent By Sh. Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 28.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Dated 02/01/2014 Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-Xxviii, New Delhi For Assessment Year 2004-05 Raising Following Grounds: I. On Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case, Cit (A) Has Erred Both On Facts & In Law, In Upholding Illegal Action Of Re-Assessment & Assumption Of Jurisdiction By The Respondent Without Issue/Service Of Notice U/S 148 & Without Recording The Reasons For Reopening The Assessment. Therefore, Impugned Assessment Order Is Liable To Be Quashed As Unsustainable, Both On Facts & In Law.

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…me Tax(Appeals) relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indus Valley Promoters Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008) 305 ITR 202, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. P. Mohanakala 291 ITR 278 and judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s. Nova Promoters and Finlease Private Limited (2012) 342 ITR 169 held that the assessee failed to discharge the burden of proof to explain the creditworthiness of the creditor and, therefore, he confirmed the addition of Rs. 5 lakhs and addition of Rs. 18,00…