CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)

86 ITD 13Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2003#1614 most cited

What is CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) authority for?

Additions cannot be made solely based on third-party information without corroborating evidence, especially when relying on section 132(4) admissions.

70

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT vs Sumeet Verma · section 132(4) · third party information · corroborating evidence · voluntary admission · search and seizure · addition · onus of proof

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 115BBESection 153ASection 153CSection 132Section 69Section 143(3)Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionarbitrary and capricioussection 132(5)section 132(1)(a)abatement of assessmentsection 158b(b)third party informationpeak credit theorysection 100section 158bb(1)section 132(4a)section 153(c)(1)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del)

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1822/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…egation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. D…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT- CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1821/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…egation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. D…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1820/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…egation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. D…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1819/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…egation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. D…

Opg Securities Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-8, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1818/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1818/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1819/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1820/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Ita No. 1821/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Ita No. 1822/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 1823/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 1824/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 1204/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 1205/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 1206/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, E-24, Preet Vihar, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110092 New Delhi-110055 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Ita No. 57/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2016-17 Ita No. 58/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2017-18 Ita No. 59/Del/2022 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Dcit, Vs Opg Securities Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, 4/10, Asaf Ali Road, Central Circle-8, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco1081C Assessee By : Sh. Akshat Jain, Ca & Sh. Rajat Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 17.10.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Akshat Jain, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Subhra J. Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 65BSection 69ASection 69C

…egation for making addition. a) P V. Kalyansundaram: 282 ITR 259 (Mad.) affirmed in 294 ITR 49 (SC) b) Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Ved Prakash Choudhary: 169 Taxman 130 c) CIT vs Sumeet Verma: 145 DLT 280 (Del) d) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs. ACIT: 86 ITD 13 (Del TM) e) ShankerlalNebnumal (HUF) V. DC1T: 80 TTJ 69 (Ahd.) f) Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT V. Jivanlal Nebhumal (HUF):182 CTR370 g) Kences Foundation (P) Limited: 289 ITR 509 (Mad) h) SP Goval vs. DCIT. 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) i) Nem Chand Dagar v. ACIT: [2004] 1 SOT 515 (Del) j) Dinesh K. Shah: 92 TTJ 109 (Bang.) k) Ramesh K. Shah v. D…

Petla Jagannadh, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 412/HYD/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 May 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, CAFor Respondent: Shri KPRR Murthy, CIT(DR)
Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)

…ge 10 of 16 ITA No 412 of 2021 P Jagannadh on the basis of the notice u/s 133(6) against the assessee is not justified. He also relied on the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal (3rd Member) in the case of Amarjeet Singh Bakshi vs. ACIT reported in 86 ITD 13 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. V.C. Shukla dated 2nd March, 1998. 15. The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the CIT (A). He submitted that the document impounded during the course of survey clearly shows that the fax was received from Asha Film Distributors by the assessee on his…

M/S. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalroe vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

…ments in support of our above findings: (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 5.11. Thus, we are agreeing with the contention of ld. AR that placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and the cancellation of appr…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ments in support of our above findings: (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 248. Thus, we are agreeing with the contention of ld. AR that placing reliance on the seized material is not proper and all the additions on the…

The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad vs. Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…t the premises of an assessee, he could not be saddled with a tax liability unless it could conceivably be related to the assessee in some reasonable manner. 6.59 On the similar lines, the Mumbai ITAT in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [20031 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any noting in the loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in (he regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but nothings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of…

Pawan Satynarayan Jalan, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(2)., Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 182/AHD/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153CSection 158B

…t the premises of an assessee, he could not be saddled with a tax liability unless it could conceivably be related to the assessee in some reasonable manner. 6.59 On the similar lines, the Mumbai ITAT in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [20031 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any noting in the loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in (he regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but nothings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…also when the diary was not written by assessee or his employees, it cannot be substantiated assessee has earned any undisclosed income hence addition based on such dumb document. e) The ITAT, Mumbai in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any notings in loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but notings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of pap…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…also when the diary was not written by assessee or his employees, it cannot be substantiated assessee has earned any undisclosed income hence addition based on such dumb document. e) The ITAT, Mumbai in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any notings in loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but notings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of pap…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

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

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…also when the diary was not written by assessee or his employees, it cannot be substantiated assessee has earned any undisclosed income hence addition based on such dumb document. e) The ITAT, Mumbai in case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) v. Asstt. CIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) held that any notings in loose sheet is no evidence by itself. An entry in the books of account maintained in the regular course of business is relevant for purposes of considering the nature and impact of a transaction, but notings on slips of paper or loose sheets of paper cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of pap…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…ng the diary seized at his residence. Thus, the addition of Rs.4.83 lacs was not sustainable in the case of the assessee when the assessing officer had failed to comply with the basis conditions stipulated in section 69.” i) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) [2003] 86 ITD 13 (DELHI) (TM) - Held – [Para 54] “……………………………….The entire addition rested on the seized document and no other material had been adverted to which would conclusively show that a huge amount of the magnitude mentioned in the seized document proceeded from one side to the other. In his own tax assessment, ‘N’ at one stage took the stand that the seized…

Adarsh Agrawal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee allowed

ITA 777/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: Shri Deepesh Jain, C.A. And Shri Arpit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…e Tax, Central-III vs., Suneet Verma [2007] 145 DLT 280 [DB] [Del.] [HC]. 05. Commissioner of Income Tax vs., Lubtec India Ltd., [2009] 311 ITR 175 [Del.] [HC]. Order of ITAT, Delhi C-Bench, Delhi in the case of 06. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs., ACIT [2003] 86 ITD 13 [Del.] [TM]. Order of ITAT, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati in the case of M/s. Fantastic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Guwahati vs., 07. ITO, Ward-2(1), Guwahati in ITA.No.104/Gau/2011 & SP.No.09/Gau/2011, Dated 07.02.2012. 08. Order of ITAT, Mumbai D-Bench-T.M. Mumbai in the case of S.P. Goyal vs., DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 [Mum.]. 09. Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Cou…

Shri Rajeev Sharma, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 430/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue’s case that a huge figure over and above figure booked in books an…

Smt Anjana Sinha, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 429/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue’s case that a huge figure over and above figure booked in books an…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 428/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue’s case that a huge figure over and above figure booked in books an…

Smt. Manju Sharma, Bhopal vs. The DCIT Central-II, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed off as

ITA 427/IND/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore15 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

Section 153ASection 17(2)(iii)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 69

…Hon’ble Apex Court was followed in the case of Shree Parshwanath Construction 24 ITJ 409 (Trib. Indore) and in the case of Addl. CIT V/s Lata Mangeshkar 97 ITR 696 (Bom.). 31. It was also settled law in the case of Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) held that “the document in question was not recovered from assessee’s premises and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross examination and further hence the testimony was not delivered, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue’s case that a huge figure over and above figure booked in books an…

Uma Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Centrl Circle-3, New Delhi

ITA 1484/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S S Rana CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 153ASection 250Section 68

…er of Income Tax (A) erred in making the addition on the basis of said papers in the hands of the assessee. Hence, the entire addition made on the basis of papers found from ‗A‘ (Third Party) was to be deleted.‖ (10) Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del): Held that where document in question was not recovered from assessee‘s possession but was recovered from N‘s possession, and assessee was not allowed any opportunity of cross-examination and further N‘s testimony was not found credible at all, it could not be said that there was any iota of evidence to support revenue‘s case that a huge figu…