CIT v. S. Khader Khan Son

Indian Education Society, Hisar vs. CIT, Hisar

The appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: -- Indian Education Society, Vs. Cit 705- Yadav Colony, Aayakar Bhawan, Hisar (Hr.) Hisar (Hr.) (Pan: Aaati3921J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: S/Shri Dinesh Gupta, Ca & Raja Kumar, Adv. Department By: Shri A.K. Saroha, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28 .01.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 26 :04.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Appellant – Indian Education Society (The Society For Short) Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Cancellation Of Registration Under Section 12Aa Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 By The Learned Cit On The Following Four Grounds: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit Erred In Holding That The Assessee Society Did Not Exist For Educational Purposes, Without Assigning Any Cogent Reasoning For This Conclusion; 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit Erred In Ordering Cancellation Of The Assessee’S Registration Under Section 12-Aa Of The Income-Tax Act;

…an Son (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Dhingra Metal Works (2011) 328 ITR 384(Del.) and the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in Paul 4 Mathews & Sons vs. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101(Ker.) and of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in (2008) 300 ITR 157(Mad.). 3.3 In the survey several documents and papers including accounting papers, registers and voucher were impounded. These papers relate to the period beginning with 2011and extend up to the date of the very survey i.e. 28.02.2012. All these papers are discussed in detail in about 70 pages of the impugned order while withdrawing registration…

M/S. Iibs Infonet (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

…33A of the Act, in view of the various judicial decisions wherein, it has been held that such statement does not have any evidentiary value, especially the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case CIT vs. S. Khakder Khan son reported in {2008) 300 ITR 157 (Madras) wherein, it has been held that “Addition on the basis of statement recorded during survey under section 133A-Sect. 133A does not empower any IT Authority to examine any person on oath, hence, any such statement has no evidentiary value and any admission made during such statement cannot, by itself, be made the basis for addition” and…

M/S. Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co., Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. C. M. Garg, Jm Ita No. 4954/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co. Vs Income Tax Officer, 196, Nsez, Phase-Ii, Ward-I, Noida Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadfb0557C Assessee By : Sh. Salil Kapoor & Shubham Rastogi, Advs. Revenue By : Sh. K. K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

…business, therefore the assessee was entitled for exemption u/s 10A of the Act being 100% Export Oriented Unit established in Special Economic Zone. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 300 ITR 157 (Mad) 12. In his rival submissions the ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the observations made in the assessment order as well as the impugned order passed by the ld. 20 Bridal Jewellery Mfg. Co. CIT(A). It was further submitted that the assessee surrendered the amount when it was cornered and if there…

Smt. Kamini Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result the penalty in question as confirmed by the Ld

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singhay: 2007-08 Smt. Kamini Jain Vs. Acit, Circle 20(1) A 92, Gujrawalan Town New Delhi Part I New Delhi 110 009 Pan: Adkpj 7858 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Ms. Poonam Ahuja, Adv. Respondent By : Sh.Rishpal Bedi, Sr.D.R.

…re not accounted in the books of account. The Assessing Officer never brought any such vouchers on the record except making ipse dixit statement that some vouchers are found that apart, the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. S. Khader Khan Sons, 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) had clearly held that no addition can be made based on the mere statement. The decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court was approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khand Son, (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) after grant…

Sumanglam Sewa Awam Educational Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…ent, recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A which is no evidence at all. For this proposition, he relied on the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) vs. ACIT 5.1 He further submitted that the information is not backed by any evidence. 5.2 He raised number of other contentions which we would be dealing, if necessary, in our findings. Shri Salil Aggarwal also made statements on merit and raised contentions with which we would deal, if necessary. The Ld. DR Shri Sujit Kumar on the othe…

Sumanglam Sewa Awam Educational Samiti, Ghaziabad vs. Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

…ent, recorded during the course of survey u/s 133A which is no evidence at all. For this proposition, he relied on the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. S. Khader Khan Son (2008) 352 ITR 480 (SC) 2. Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. Khader Khan Son [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) vs. ACIT 5.1 He further submitted that the information is not backed by any evidence. 5.2 He raised number of other contentions which we would be dealing, if necessary, in our findings. Shri Salil Aggarwal also made statements on merit and raised contentions with which we would deal, if necessary. The Ld. DR Shri Sujit Kumar on the othe…

Sh. Ashwani Jain, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Year: 2007-08 Ashwani Jain, A-92, Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Gujrawalan Town, Part-1, Income Tax, Circle-20(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Pan: Aahpj3505G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : S/Sh. Rakesh Gupta & Tarun Kumar, Advocates Respondent By : Sh. K.K. Jaiswal, Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.09.2015 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2015 Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Xxii, New Delhi, Dated 31.12.2012 Passed For The Assessment Year 2007-08. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of Ld. Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs.6,23,046/- & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio. Ii. That In Any Case & In Any View Of The Matter, Action Of Ld. Cit(A) In Not Quashing The Penalty Order Framed By Ld. Ao Is Beyond Jurisdiction & Without Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & The Impugned Penalty Order Being Illegal & Void Ab-Initio & The Impugned Penalty Order Has Been Framed Without Considering The Submissions/Evidences Of The Assessee & Without Providing Any Adverse

…e based on the DVO’s report. He further submitted that no addition can be made based on mere statement of surrender of the assessee. In support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High court in the case of CIT Vs. Khader Khan Son, 300 ITR 157 (Mad.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Paul Mathews and Sons Vs. CIT, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Ker.). He further submitted that no penalty is leviable and in respect of an item for which the addition was made based on the concession of the party and in support of this proposition, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble G…

Income Tax vs. M/S. Dhingra Metal Works

…cer to examine a person on oath, 2010:DHC:4947-DB Section 133A does not permit the same. 13. The Kerala High Court in Paul Mathews & Sons Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2003) 263 ITR 101 (Kerala) and Madras High Court in CIT Vs. Kader Khan, (2008) 300 ITR 157 have also taken a similar view. The relevant portion of the Kerala High Court judgment in the case of Paul Mathews & Sons (supra) is reproduced hereinbelow :- “The provision also enables the income-tax authority to impound and retain in his custody for such period as he thinks fit any books of account or other documents inspected by him,…