CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

237 ITR 570Supreme Court of India1999#251 most cited

What is CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan authority for?

An unsatisfactory explanation for an amount credited in the books does not automatically result in it being deemed as the assessee's income under Section 68. The initial onus is on the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction.

308

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Smt P K Noorjahan · CIT v Smt P K Noorjahan · 237 ITR 570 · Section 68 · Section 69 · cash credit · unexplained money · burden of proof · onus of proof · unsatisfactory explanation · deemed income · identity creditworthiness genuineness

Also reported as

103 Taxmann 382150 Taxmann.com 301155 CTR 509

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 115BBESection 147Section 148Section 68Section 132Section 69

Issues it is cited on

creditworthiness of the creditorsection 132(4a)loose papersaddition under section 68unexplained moneysection 69section 158unexplained investmentsection 158bsection 115bbsection 131section 115bbe

Judgments citing CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan

Latif Ebrahim Patel, Mumbai vs. ITO 17(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 7097/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Mr. Latif Ebrahim Patel Income Tax Officer-17(1)(1) बिधम/ 202, 3, Sarkar Tower, Mumbai Mazagaon, Vs. Mumbai-400010 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Agqpp1237N (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Ms. Aasifa Khan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…h are not oblivious of the fact that onus is cast upon an assessee to explain the nature and source of an investment made by him to the satisfaction of the A.O, but however, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) the legislature in all its wisdom had conferred a discretion with the A.O in the matter of treating the source of investment which has not been satisfactorily explained by the assessee as the income of the assessee, and the A.O is not obliged to treat such source of investment as income in every case where the explanation offered by the asse…

ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Spartacus Farmsp.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 3073/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3073/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The I.T.O-8(3)(2), M/S. Spartacus Farms Pvt. Ltd. 201, Aayakar Bhavan, 11-A, Gr. Floor, बनाम/ M. K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Technopolis Knowledge Park, Vs. Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 093 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aancs 6632 A (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Justin ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Ms. Trupti Y. Katale सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 30.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 13.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.:

For Appellant: Shri V. JustinFor Respondent: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar &
Section 68

…me Tax (Appeals) was rendered on the totally different facts. Those were cases of corporate Indian entities granting share application, which is not at all the case here. The decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570 (SC) relied upon by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is also not applicable. The said case law by no stretch of imagination lays down that the Assessing Officer should accept the creditworthiness when there is clear lack of evidence in this regard. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) emphasis that there is no requirement…

Bajrang Singh Choudhary, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1013/JPR/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2018AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Jha, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244A

…nored the settled law that u/s 68, 69 etc. only a discretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercised judiciously but he is not always obliged to make the addition if the explanation is not found satisfactory. Kindly refer CIT v/s P. K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC). B. Shri Jagdish Singh Chaudhary 5.1 Notably, thereafter, the said Shri Jagdish Choudhary vide his letter dated 15.03.2016 filed on 16.08.2016 addressed to the AO (see second remand report PB-26) clearly confirmed having advanced Rs.10 lakhs to the assessee pursuant to the purchase agreement dated 08.03.2007 (PB-12). In the said letter, he…

Yash Developers, Thane vs. DCIT Cir 3, Thane

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

ITA 833/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Yash Developers Dcit Circle 3, Room No. 2, B Wing, 6Th Floor, Room No. 4, Aaji Krupa Building, Hari Niwas Circle, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No. 16-Z, Vs. Naupada, Thane (W), Wagle Indl. Estate, Thane(W), Thane – 400 602. Thane-400604. Pan: Aaafy4509J

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.Vidhyadhar (DR)
Section 133ASection 253Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. Thus taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and, in particular, the fact, that the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the interest claimed/paid in relation to these credits in the assessment year under consideration or even in the subsequent years, and tax deducted at source has been deducted out…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 132/BIL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 131/BIL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 130/BIL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 128/BIL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 127/BIL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Shri. Javed Ali Pradhan, Raipur

In the result, all appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 126/BIL/2011[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur10 Jan 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K.Singh, CITDR

…even if the explanation of the appellant was not found to the satisfaction of the AO, the AO is not obliged to treat the impugned sums on presumptions and assumptions, as payments/investments made from the undisclosed income. [CIT v. Smt. PK. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC)]; [CIT v. Moghul Durbar (1995) 216 ITR 301 (AP) ]. 1.28 This leads to an irresistible conclusion that the entries in the impugned loose papers were not the payments/investments made by the appellant and since the brokerage earned by the appellant, if any in such dealings having been sufficiently disclosed in the returns, the impugned presump…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5351/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Shri Anunav Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Paramita Tripathy, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 148Section 68

…n such an amount as an income and, therefore, addition on account of cash deposits could not be made as undisclosed income u/s. 68 of the Act in the case of the appellant in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT vs. Bharat Engineers & Construction Co. 83 ITR 187 (SC). 4. That the CIT(A) also erred in not adjudicating the appeal following the order of this Tribunal dated 18.10.2013 passed in the cases of Tarun Goyal Group in accordance with which holistic view is to be taken considering the group as a whole and only the commission income is t…

Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

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

ITA 481/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Dec 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl. CIT - DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 69

…IT(A):- 12 M/s. Kamakshi Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur Gist at PB S. No. Case law Page 1 CIT v. Daulat Ram rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) 72 2 Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC) 72 3 CIT v. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC) 73 4 Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury & Ors. V. CIT (1976) 102 ITR 12 (SC) 73 Distict Superintendent of Police, Chennai v. K. Inbasagaran (2006) 5 73-74 282 ITR 435 (SC) 6 J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar & Ors. (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) 74-75 7 CIT v. Haji jan Mohd. Gaur (2004) 267 ITR 765 (Raj.) 75 8 Add. CIT v. karnail Singh V. Kaleran (1974) 94 ITR 505…

DCIT, Jaipur vs. Godawari Estates Pvt. Ltd

ITA 493/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Nov 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Rolee Agarwal, CIT - DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(1)

…ssessee company and other investments made by such investor companies are much more than to the investment made in assessee company. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Smt. P. K. Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) and CIT Vs Bharat Engineering and Construction Co. (1972) 83 ITR 187 (SC) 5. The ld. AO by doubting the creditworthiness and genuineness of the share capital/share premium in above paras issued a show cause notice dated 06.02.2015 (copy at PB Page 37 to 40) to the assessee for treating the share capital/premium as income of the assessee on…

Yash Developers, Thane vs. DCIT Cir-3, Thane

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

ITA 3767/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Amarjit Singh (Jm)

Section 131(1)(d)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…and not "shall". Thus the unsatisfactoriness of the explanation does not and need not automatically result in deeming the amount credited in the books as the income of the assessee as held by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. P. K. Noorjahan [1999] 237 ITR 570. 10. Thus taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and, in particular, the fact, that the Assessing Officer has not disallowed the interest claimed/paid in relation to these credits in the assessment year under consideration or even in the subsequent years, and tax deducted at source has been deducted out…

Kanta Devi, Jaipur vs. ITO, Bhiwadi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 417/JPR/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT)

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 417/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2011-12 cuke Kanta Devi, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Village- Thada, Post- Sheethal, Ward- Bhiwadi Tehsil, Tijara, district- Alwar. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BDWPD 9059 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri P.C. Parwal (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.C…

Iqbal Ahmed Khalilamed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 4896/MUM/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

…ITA No. 2135/M/2013 & 4896/M/2015 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “I” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Shri. Iqbal Ahmed Khalil ITO 22(1)(2) Ahmed Subedar, Shop no. 1, Mumbai Jamnabhai Chawl, Opp. v. Navel Depot, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400086 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AGPPS6788L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)…

Iqbal Ahmaed Khalil Ahmed Subedar, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the A

ITA 2135/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: Shri. S.C. Tiwari & RutejaFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S. Naik(CIT-DR)
Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 40A(3)

…ITA No. 2135/M/2013 & 4896/M/2015 आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “I” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No. 2135/Mum/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ) आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.4896/Mum/2015 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09) बिाम/ Shri. Iqbal Ahmed Khalil ITO 22(1)(2) Ahmed Subedar, Shop no. 1, Mumbai Jamnabhai Chawl, Opp. v. Navel Depot, Chirag Nagar, Ghatkopar(W), Mumbai- 400086 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ PAN : AGPPS6788L (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent)…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., Gurgaon

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4647/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…erial with the AO to make these additions. 12.3 The learned AR in support of its contention relied upon the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Divine International, 2011 (9) TMI 134 (Del) and CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), 10 I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642,4643,4644 & 4645/Del/2014 AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 4647,4648,4649,4650 & 4651/Del/2014. Assessment Years : 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11. 12.4 In reply, the learned CIT [DR] relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have gone through the assessment order and the order passed by the learned C…

M/S. Micromax Informatics Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and that of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4642/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri B. P. Jain

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, C. AFor Respondent: Shri H. K. Choudhary, CIT [DR]
Section 142Section 143(3)Section 153A

…erial with the AO to make these additions. 12.3 The learned AR in support of its contention relied upon the judgment of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of DCIT vs. M/s Divine International, 2011 (9) TMI 134 (Del) and CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 (SC), 10 I. T. Appeal Nos. 4642,4643,4644 & 4645/Del/2014 AND I. T. Appeal Nos. 4647,4648,4649,4650 & 4651/Del/2014. Assessment Years : 2006-07,2007-08,2008-09,2009-10 & 2010-11. 12.4 In reply, the learned CIT [DR] relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 13. We have gone through the assessment order and the order passed by the learned C…

DCIT-Central Circle-XI, Kolkata vs. Shri Mayank Daga, Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2486/KOL/2013[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2011-12

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 69

…credit method to arrive at the undisclosed income of the assessee in the undisclosed bank account No.SB 6664 with the Syndicate bank." Reference may also be drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs Smt. P.K.Noorjehan reported in 237 ITR 570(SC) wherein their lordships have held that mere unsatisfactoriness of the explanation offered by the assessee, does not, and need not, automatically result in deeming the value of investment to be the income of the assessee. That is still a matter within the discretion of the officer ITA No.337/Kol/2014 A.Y.2011-12 Amit Agarwal vs. DCIT, CC-XXVII…