CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan

123 ITR 3High Court1980#9341 most cited

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

Additions to income based on mere suspicion, without adequate inquiry or evidence, are not permissible. The assessing officer's assumptions must be supported by material facts, and unsubstantiated claims by the assessee do not automatically shift the burden of proof back to the assessee without the AO's own proper investigation.

11

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan · cash found during search · inadequate enquiry · source of source · lack of enquiry · addition u/s 68 · section 133a · income-tax officer · suspicion vs reality · burden of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 131Section 133ASection 69A

Issues it is cited on

cash found during searchinadequate enquirysource of sourcelack of enquirymalabar industrialaddition u/s 68change of opinionerroneous and prejudicialrevenue expendituresection 133aincome-tax officersection 26

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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota vs. Nisha Jain, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with no orders as to cost

ITA 378/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Aug 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 131

…al. There is no error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are 22 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA VS NISHA JAIN, KOTA accordingly dismissed.—CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138 : (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker) : 42R.1622, affirmed.” 13. No addition permissible merely on suspicion: It is well settled that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of reality. Thus, the impugned additions have been made merely on suspicion, impugned addition deserves to be deleted here itself. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)…

Ahluwalia Erectors & Fabricators Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Kota

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

ITA 433/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra Addl. CITa
Section 143(3)Section 234B

…Court has agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. There is no error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. — CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138: (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker) :42R.1622, affirmed.” Thus, it was fully established beyond all reasonable doubts that there was sufficiency of cash available and in absence of any evidence of utilization thereof elsewhere, the same was deposited in the bank. 6.Supporting Case Laws on availability of funds: The Hon’ble High Courts and the Tribunals in different factual situ…

Gayatri Devi, Jaipur vs. PCIT(Central), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/JPR/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Sept 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 405/JPR/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Gayatri Devi Pr. CIT Vs. Rathunath Puri Daba Takhta Tonk Central, Jaipur Tonk 304 001 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ALJPD 4796 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Mahendra Gargieya Advocate & Ms. Veshnawi Joshi, Ad…

Jagat Singh Rathore, Tonk vs. ITO WD 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 139/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…Court has agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. There is no error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. — CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138: (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker): 42R.1622, affirmed.” 7. Contents of affidavits filed remained uncontroverted hence were binding upon AO as held in Mehta Pareek & co. (30 ITR 181 SC). Onus shifted to AO was not discharged and he proceeded on mere suspicion which is not a good basis as held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 SC). 8.No application of mind by the CIT(A):…

Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia, Tonk vs. PCIT Central, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 102/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Ajey Malik (CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 5

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;arHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 102/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2018-19 cuke Dinesh Kumar Chaurasia PCIT Vs. M/s Ambika Properties, Near Hemu (Central), Jaipur Circle, Tonk LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABAPC 0810 D vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Re…

Parshavnath Builders, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri MahendraGargieya ,Adv. &For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263

…Court has agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. There is no error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed. — CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138: (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker):42R.1622, affirmed.” In view of the above submissions and the judicial guideline, the impugned order passed u/s 263 deserves to be quashed.” 3.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. PCIT, Udaipur. 3.5 We have heard the rival contention and perused the material available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the…

Rameshwar Prasad Shringi, Gumanpura vs. Pr.CIT, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 10/JPR/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Sept 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. B. K. Gupta (Pr. CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

…Court has agreed with the said view of the Tribunal. There is no error in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal. There is thus no merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.— CIT vs. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (1980) 15 CTR (Ker) 138 : (1980) 123 ITR 3 (Ker): 42R.1622, affirmed.” Thus, it was fully established beyond all reasonable doubts that there was sufficiency of cash available and in absence of any evidence of utilization thereof elsewhere, the same could be deposited in the bank. 5. Past Assessments completed - Not disturbed - Binds the parties: All the assessments of the past/intervenin…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Hind Industries Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kambledcit Vs Hind Industries Ltd. Circle 11(1) A-1, Phase-1, Okhla New Delhi Industrial Area New Delhi (Appellant) Aaach0870N (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 14ASection 40A(3)Section 69C

…s been disallowed. The provision of Section 69C of IT Act is a discretionary provision and not mandatory provision. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Pr. CIT vs. Rama Shankar Yadav (2017) 85 taxmann.com 173 (All) ii) CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan 123 ITR 3 (Kerala) iii) CIT vs. Smt. PK Noorjahan 237 ITR 570 (SC) The Ld. AR submitted that if the assessee explains the source of payment and there is no dispute about the source of payment, then Section 69C of IT Act is not applicable. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Sajni Jewellers vs. DCIT 241 ITR 383 (Guj) ii) CIT vs. Golani Brother…

Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel, Kheda vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nadiad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2329/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2329/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Krushnakant Bhailalbhai Patel Ito, Ward-2 At Mahudha Nagarwada Vs Nadiad. Nr.Gujarati School At & Post Mahudha Dist. Kheda. Pan : Awkpp 7005 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Written submissionsFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Goel, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69

…ssessee is an agriculturist, he has no other source of income, therefore, on the strength of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjahan Noorjahan, 237 ITR 570 (SC), which affirmed the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Noorjehan, 123 ITR 3, CIT Vs. Moghul Darbar, 216 ITR 301, DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders, 256 ITR 360 and Mitesh Rolling Vs. CIT, 258 ITR 278, it is submitted that additions ought not to have been made. In the submissions, the ld.counsel for the assessee has made reference to the following decisions: CIT Vs. Megha Industries, (103) 7 TaxCorp (DT) 54015 i) (Gujarat); ii) CIT…

Sri Prakash Bhandary, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/CTK/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack11 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Purna Chandra Mishra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR
Section 69

…in the case of CIT Vrs. Smt. P.K.Noorjahan (their order dated 15.1.1997) vide ITR 237 page 570 and deleted the addition made by the A.O. U/s.69 while affirming the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vrs. Smt. P.K.Noorjahan vide (1980)123 ITR 3 (Ker). 4. Here, in the case of the appellant, it is submitted, that the appellant being a partner of the firm, M/s.Sugi Marketing used to receive the payment of sale-proceeds from all most all the launch owners or big boat owners throughout Odisha State and Outside State through his Savings Bank Account No.20002230206 maintained in the same State…

Shriprakash V. Sardesai, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cxir 47, Mumbai

ITA 484/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 484/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. S. Padmaja
Section 143Section 271(1)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R. C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 484/Mum/2011 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Shri Prakash V. Sardesai DCIT Cen Cxir 47 बिधम/ 3rd Floor, Madhav Vilas, Setalwad R. No. 658, AAyakar Vs. Lane, Mumbai. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN/GIR No. AMYPS0171J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. S. Padmaja सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 09/02/2017 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18/04/2017 Date of Pronouncement आद…

CIT v. Smt. P.K. Noorjehan (123 ITR 3) — Cited in 11 Judgments | BharatTax