CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

294 ITR 49Supreme Court of India2007#253 most cited

What is CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P) authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made solely based on uncorroborated third-party statements, documents, or loose sheets seized during a search, and such evidence requires the assessee to be provided with an opportunity for cross-examination.

299

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2014 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. R. Nalini Devi · 294 ITR 49 · uncorroborated third party statement · loose sheets · seized documents · cross-examination · evidentiary value · section 132 · section 153A · section 153C · addition without corroboration

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 153CSection 143(3)Section 68Section 292CSection 131Section 132(4)

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 158bb(1)dumb documentssection 69bsection 132(4a)section 292section 131(1a)section 34loose paperssection 29section 153c(1)section 158bb

Judgments citing CIT v. R. Nalini Devi ITTA 232 of 2013 (A. P)

SUHAS DIGAMBAR CHINCHKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A) & NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1651/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1651/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Suhas Digambar Chinchkar, Vs. Ito, National Faceless B- 1005, Bhoomi Allium, Assessment Centre, Near Kokne Chowk, Delhi. Rahatni, Pune- 411017. Pan : Afspc4270R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ritvik Vatsyayan Revenue By : Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of ₹5,00,000 Under Section 69 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Providing The Appellant An Opportunity To Rebut Or Cross-Examine The Third- Party Material Used Against Him. The Addition Is Based On A Document Allegedly Impounded During A Survey On M/S Swastik

For Appellant: Shri Ritvik VatsyayanFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje (Virtual)
Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 44ASection 69

…arty material used against him was provided to the assessee on the basis of which the addition was made. In support of all these contentions, the assessee relied on judgement passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P. V. Kalyanasundaram, [2007] 294 ITR 49 (SC) and CIT vs. Ashvani Gupta [2010] 322 ITR 396 (Delhi). 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee and accordingly, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and restore the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with a directi…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…eration of this Court. Accordingly, the above tax case is dismissed. No costs." 70. The above findings of the Hon'ble High Court as well as the lower appellate authorities are noted to have been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in their order reported in 294 ITR 49. In our considered view, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judicial precedent is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The factual matrix in the assessee's case is akin to that in the decided matter. In the present case, it is an undisputed fact that the AO has not carried out any independent valuation exercise except relying on…

NARESH ARORA,GURGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

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

ITA 3144/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…T (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). 5. The same is rebutted by the Department by contending that it is an admitted piece of evidence on the basis of statement of Arti Garg and her husband and a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v…

ARIT GARG,DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-31, DELHI

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

ITA 3143/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumararti Garg, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A – 19, Guru Ram Dass Nagar, Delhi. Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. (Pan : Akupg4398A) Naresh Arora, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle 31, A-061, 6Th Floor, Spaze Privy, Delhi. Sector 72, Sohna Road, Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aacpa3657P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, Advocate Shri Vaibhav Srivastava, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.10.2025 Date Of Order : 14.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT DR
Section 65BSection 69Section 69C

…T (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.); (xv) CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC); (xvi) Pushkar Narain Sarraj v. CIT (1990) 183 ITR 388 (All.); (xvii) P.R. Metrani v. CIT, Bangalore (2006) 157 taxman 325 (SC); (xviii) CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); (xix) CIT v. Kanpur Coat Syndicate (1964) 53 ITR 225 (SC). 5. The same is rebutted by the Department by contending that it is an admitted piece of evidence on the basis of statement of Arti Garg and her husband and a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Addl. Director General Adjudication, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CEN CIR 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. PICHANATHA PILLAI RAMESH, COIMBATORE

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 571/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…onfession, then, it is not necessary to take help of confession. 6.13.3 The undersigned is of the view that any additions based on statement recorded must be corroborated with independent material. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49] held that loose sheets or documents found cannot form the sole basis for addition unless corroborated. Therefore, the undersigned is of the view that the action of the AO, without bringing corroborative evidence while making addition in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate. 6.14 Further, the presumption laid down in section 132(4A) and 2…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. PICHANATHA PILLAI RAMESH, CHENNAI

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 570/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Ms. N. V. Lakshmi, Advocate
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…onfession, then, it is not necessary to take help of confession. 6.13.3 The undersigned is of the view that any additions based on statement recorded must be corroborated with independent material. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49] held that loose sheets or documents found cannot form the sole basis for addition unless corroborated. Therefore, the undersigned is of the view that the action of the AO, without bringing corroborative evidence while making addition in the hands of the appellant is not appropriate. 6.14 Further, the presumption laid down in section 132(4A) and 2…

VIMALARJUN TRUST,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2094/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year 2017-18 Vimalarjun Trust, Vs. Acit, 2/652, Vikram Khand, Gomti Circle-2, Nagar, Lucknow Delhi Uttar Pradesh Pin: 226010 Pan No. Aabtv7815R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advs. & Shri PawanFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kaushal, CIT DR
Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153CSection 250

…re not sufficient evidence by themselves unless supported by other material. b) CIT v. Girish Chaudhary (163 Taxman 608, Delhi HC): Notings on loose sheets are not substantive evidence; they require independent corroboration. c) CIT v. P. V. Kalyanasundaram (294 ITR 49, SC): Addition cannot be made merely on the basis of a third party's statement/document unless corroborated. C d) Common Cause v. Union of India (394 ITR 220, SC): Documents seized from third parties (e.g., "Sahara Diaries") without further investigation or corroboration cannot be the sole basis for making additions. 5.2 Even assuming the document…

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3), NEW WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1491/AHD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…was legally valid. On the merits of the addition, the CIT(A) held that there was a significant difference between the registered consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore and the stamp duty value of Rs. 7.58 crore, which, as held in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2006) 294 ITR 49 (Mad.)] and K.R. Builders v. ITO [ITA No. 1213/Bang/2016], constituted strong corroborative evidence of on- money payment. The CIT(A) noted that the statement of Shri Bharat Patel clearly quantified the cash payments year-wise, and that the same had never been retracted. Further, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was provided a copy of the stateme…

RATNADEEP INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OLD WARD 3(1)(3) NEW WARD3(1)(2)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1490/AHD/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1491/Ahd/2025, Asst.Year 2012-13 Ratnadeep Infrastructure The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Private Limited Old Ward-3(1)(3) V/S. 126, 1St Floor New 3 (1) (2) Neelam Shopping Center Krishna Nagar Chowk Ahmedabad – 382 346 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaecr 5728 F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhijit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Of Even Date 01/07/2025 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Years (Ays) 2011-2012 & 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.1490/Ahd/2025 For Ay 2011-12:

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

…was legally valid. On the merits of the addition, the CIT(A) held that there was a significant difference between the registered consideration of Rs. 2.50 crore and the stamp duty value of Rs. 7.58 crore, which, as held in CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2006) 294 ITR 49 (Mad.)] and K.R. Builders v. ITO [ITA No. 1213/Bang/2016], constituted strong corroborative evidence of on- money payment. The CIT(A) noted that the statement of Shri Bharat Patel clearly quantified the cash payments year-wise, and that the same had never been retracted. Further, the CIT(A) held that the assessee was provided a copy of the stateme…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 500/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…n lies on the assessee to explain the contents. • AO is not required to disprove them at the threshold. 32 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Citations: • CIT v. Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad) • Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) This is not the duty or power of AO to disprove the incriminating document. It is the assesee who need to explain the details with evidence. Here assesee faile dto do so. Only oral argument without any evidence are not enough to rule out the ownership or addition. 4. Application of Evidence…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 498/JPR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2020-21
For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…resumption\n• Once documents/assets are found, initial burden lies on the assessee to\nexplain the contents.\n• AO is not required to disprove them at the threshold.\nCitations:\n• CIT v. Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC)\n\nCIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad)\nShashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del)\n\nThis is not the duty or power of AO to disprove the incriminating document. It is\nthe assesee who need to explain the details with evidence. Here assesee faile\ndto do so. Only oral argument without any evidence are not enough to rule out\nthe ownership or addition.\n\n4. Application of Evi…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…n lies on the assessee to explain the contents. • AO is not required to disprove them at the threshold. 32 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Citations: • CIT v. Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad) • Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) This is not the duty or power of AO to disprove the incriminating document. It is the assesee who need to explain the details with evidence. Here assesee faile dto do so. Only oral argument without any evidence are not enough to rule out the ownership or addition. 4. Application of Evidence…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…n lies on the assessee to explain the contents. • AO is not required to disprove them at the threshold. 32 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Citations: • CIT v. Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad) • Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) This is not the duty or power of AO to disprove the incriminating document. It is the assesee who need to explain the details with evidence. Here assesee faile dto do so. Only oral argument without any evidence are not enough to rule out the ownership or addition. 4. Application of Evidence…

SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR GOYAL,SIKAR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…n lies on the assessee to explain the contents. • AO is not required to disprove them at the threshold. 32 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal Citations: • CIT v. Chuharmal (1988) 172 ITR 250 (SC) • CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (2007) 294 ITR 49 (Mad) • Shashi Garg v. CIT (2007) 162 Taxman 171 (Del) This is not the duty or power of AO to disprove the incriminating document. It is the assesee who need to explain the details with evidence. Here assesee faile dto do so. Only oral argument without any evidence are not enough to rule out the ownership or addition. 4. Application of Evidence…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ABDUL AZEEZ NAGOOR GANI, VIRUDHACHALAM

ITA 280/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr. G. Baskar, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 292C

…ment and ignoring the other part is not appropriate and against the principles of fairness. The principle of fairness mandates that AO should consider all aspects of the seized material to arrive at a fair conclusion. In the case of CIT Vs. PV Kalyanasundaram 294 ITR 49(SC), the Hon'ble Apex court has held that the AO should not cherry-pick documents from the seized material and the AO must consider all the relevant documents holistically to ensure a fair assessment. Further, as relied upon by the appellant, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DCIT vs. Hotel Joshi 242 ITR 478 (MP) has held that partia…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. SUJAI ANAND REDDY, CHENNAI

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

ITA 617/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.617/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Sujai Anand Reddy, No. 4, 10Th Street, Nandanam, Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai 600 035. Chennai. [Pan: Aakps5124P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Mohan Das, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.12.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 19, Chennai, For The Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The Appellant-Revenue Raised 6 Grounds Of Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CITFor Respondent: Shri K. Mohan Das, CA
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…e absence of corroborative evidence; the statement alone cannot substantiate the addition, especially when retracted. For the above preposition, the ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case CIT v. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [(2007) 294 ITR 49], wherein, it was held that loose sheets or documents found at third-party premises cannot form the sole basis for addition unless corroborated. 12. The ld. CIT(A) has also observed that a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act has evidentiary value but cannot be the sole 12 I.T.A. No.617/Chny/25 basis for an addition without corrob…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, COIMBATORE

ITA 3357/CHNY/2024[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…on of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT\n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nM/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust\n:: 34 :: \nVs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (294 ITR 49) wherein at Para 5, it was\nobserved that, the notings on the loose pieces of paper may be a cause\nfor suspicion but the same cannot be relied upon, unless there is\ncorroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the\nparties to the transaction.\n8.5 Having taken note of the above position of law, we now again revert\nback to th…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, COIMBATORE

ITA 3355/CHNY/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT \n\n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22) \nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22) \nM/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust \n\n:: 34 :: \n\nVs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (294 ITR 49) wherein at Para 5, it was \nobserved that, the notings on the loose pieces of paper may be a cause \nfor suspicion but the same cannot be relied upon, unless there is \ncorroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the \nparties to the transaction.\n\n8.5 Having taken note of the above position of law, we now again revert \nbac…

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST, COIMBATORE

ITA 3353/CHNY/2024[2015]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT \n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22)\n M/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust \n:: 34 :: \nVs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (294 ITR 49) wherein at Para 5, it was \nobserved that, the notings on the loose pieces of paper may be a cause \nfor suspicion but the same cannot be relied upon, unless there is \ncorroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the \nparties to the transaction.\n8.5 Having taken note of the above position of law, we now again revert \nback…

BANNARIAMMAN EDUCATIONAL TRUST,COIMBATORE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 3314/CHNY/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2021-22
For Appellant: Mr.Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivasan, CIT/DR
Section 12ASection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153CSection 250

…on’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT \n\nITA Nos.3310 to 3314/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2017-18 to 2021-22)\nITA Nos.3353 & 3354 to 3358/Chny/2024 \n(AYs 2015-16 & 2017-18 to 2021-22)\n M/s.Bannari Amman Educational Trust \n\n:: 34 :: \n\nVs. P.V. Kalayanasundaram (294 ITR 49) wherein at Para 5, it was \nobserved that, the notings on the loose pieces of paper may be a cause \nfor suspicion but the same cannot be relied upon, unless there is \ncorroboration by corresponding entry in regular accounts of both the \nparties to the transaction. \n\n8.5 Having taken note of the above position of law, we now again revert \nba…

Showing 1–20 of 299 · Page 1 of 15

...