CIT v. R.S. Rathaore)

PEEYUSH AGARWAL,JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), JAIPUR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN

In the result Ground and 1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

…further mentioned that in Sales Register five entries Voucher No. 720 to 724 were found cancelled which shows tinkering in sales register. (h) The Ld. CIT(A) relied various case laws cited at page 52 to 70 of his order as under:- (i) CIT vs. RS Rathore (1995) 212 ITR 390 (Raj.) (ii) CIT vs. P.Mohanakala (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) (iii) Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) (iv) CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. (1994) 208 ITR 465 (Calcutta) 11 Peeyush Agarwal, Jaipur. (v) CIT vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623 (SC) (vi) A.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) (vii) Sree…

RAGHAV KUMAR DHOOT,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, JAIPUR

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

…ditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading\nCo. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file\nnumber of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained\nseparately by the assessee CIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86\nTaxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra\nKothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that\ntransaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct.\n(Emphasis Supplied)\nFrom the above discussion it is clear that the credits received by the\nappellant remain unexplained in terms of identity, genuineness…

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

…e creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.) The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct….’’ (Emphasis Supplied) Based on the material available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are d…

MAHENDRA SINGH NARUKA,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesseein ITA no

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकरअपीलसं. / ITA. No. 204 & 205/JPR/2025 निर्धारणवर्ष / AssessmentYears : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Shri Mahendra Singh Naruka B-536, J.D.A. Colony Malivya Nagar, Jaipur 302 017 अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम Vs. The ACIT Central Circle-3 Jaipur प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent स्थायीलेखा सं. / जीआईआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABUPN 1656 J निधर्धारिती की ओरसे / Assesseeby : Shri S.R. Sharma, Advocate राजस्व की ओरसे /Revenue by : Mrs. Anita Rinesh

…e creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.) The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct….’’ (Emphasis Supplied) Based on the material available on file, I do not find any infirmity in the action of the Id. AO Accordingly, these Grounds of Appeal are d…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , JAIPUR

…editworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR\n820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice\nand each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S.\nRathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High\nCourt in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213\nheld that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……….”\n(Emphasis Supplied)\n(xvi) It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v.\nCommissioner of Income-tax [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRALCIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

…editworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR\n820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice\nand each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S.\nRathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High\nCourt in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213\nheld that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……….”\n(Emphasis Supplied)\n(xvi) It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v.\nCommissioner of Income-tax [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/…

KAILASH CHAND MAHESHWARI,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……….” (Emphasis Supplied) (xvi) It was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1995] 80 Taxman 89 (SC)/ [19…

SHREE DURGA JEWELLERS,JAWAHAR NAGAR JAIPUR vs. AO CIRCLE 4 JAIPUR, CR BUILDING JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

…held that the responsibility is on the assessee to\ndischarge the onus that the cash creditor is a man of means to allow the cash\ncredit. The burden to prove the source of receipt is in respect of each entry as held\nin the case of CIT v. R.S. Rathore [1995] 212 ITR 390 (Raj.), that while explaining\nthe various credits and investments, it is possible that the assessee may be\nsuccessful in explaining some of them, but that does not by itself mean that the\nentire investments has to be considered as explained.\n8.17 Further, mere mention of income-tax file number of creditor will not suffice to\ndischarge the on…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/698 of the Act:- In the case of Neeraj Agrawal…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 IIR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……” In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69B of the Act:- Neeraj Agrawal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax…

DCIT, JAIPUR vs. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. , JAIPUR

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

Bench: Him.

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Amrapali Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct. ………”. (Emphasis Supplied) In the following cases the excess stock was upheld as taxable in the context of section 69/69B of…

RAJ KUMARI AGARWAL,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CEN CIR 2, , JAIPUR

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi 13 Raj Kumari Agarwal vs. ACIT Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction byrebeques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In view of the above discussion the addition made in the assessment order is hereby pheld and this ground of appeal of the…

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE I, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITK 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct...........". (Emphasis Supplied) In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge his primary onus and, accordingly, the AO has rightly treated the c…

YOGESH GINNING MILL, PROP. YOGESH CHAND GUPTA,GOVINDGARH vs. ACIT, ALWAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: This Tribunal Which Were Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)- 4, Jaipur [ For Short Cit(A) ] Passed On Dates & F For The Assessment Years Mentioned As Tabulated Here In Below, In Turn Those Orders Were Arises Because The Assessee Has Yogesh Ginning Mill Vs. Acit

…creditworthiness of the creditors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITK 820 (Cal.), it was held that mere mention of file number of creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct...........". (Emphasis Supplied) In the present case, the appellant has failed to discharge his primary onus and, accordingly, the AO has rightly treated the c…

MOHAN LAL ASHOK KUMAR SARAF,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CEN CIR 1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated hereinabove

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR MkWa- ,l-lhrky{eh] U;kf;dlnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHA LAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 879/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear :2017-18 Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar Saraf cuke The DCIT Vs. 223, Johri Bazar Central Circle-1 Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACFM 6432 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Ankit Totuka, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Ms. Alka G…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

…itors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law i…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

…itors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law i…

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

…itors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law i…

ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT vs. CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

…itors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law i…

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result the four appeals filed by the assessee stands

Bench: Him In The Case Of The Assessee For All These Four Assessment Year.

…itors. In CIT v. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. [1998] 232 ITR 820 (Cal), it was held that mere mention of file number of Chandra Mohan Badaya vs. DCIT creditor will not suffice and each entry has to be explained separately by the assesseeCIT v. R.S. Rathaore [1995] 212 ITR 390/86 Taxman 20 (Raj.). The Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chandra Kothari v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 254/[2004] 136 Taxman 213 held that transaction by cheques may not be always sacrosanct……..” In case of Roshan Di Hatti v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 107 ITR SC)[08-03-1977] it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "Now, the law i…