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)

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1481/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

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…

Neeraj Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1485/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

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

ITA 1482/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

Ritu Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1476/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1414/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1413/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 3, New Delhi

ITA 1412/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Hon’Ble & Sh. K. N. Charyita No. 1412/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 1413/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 1414/Del/2018 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Brij Bhushan Singal, Vs Acit, W-29, Greater Kailash, Part-Ii, Central Circle-3, New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aefps6298M

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

…rs. (1998) AIR 1406 (SC) " Addl. CIT, Bombay City-I Vs Miss Lata Mangeshkar (1974) 97 ITR 696 (Bom.) " SP Goyal Vs DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) " ITO, Mumbai Vs Synthetic Hydrocarbon, Mumabi in ITA No. 5188/Mum/2011 " Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs ACIT (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Del.) " Prarthana Construction (P) Ltd. Vs DCIT (2000) 118 Taxman 112 (Ahd.) " Chuharmal Vs CIT (1988) 39 Taxman 190 (SC) 38. The averments made by the assessee were summarized by the ld. CIT(A) as under: “(i) No so called accommodation entries were obtained from Sh. R K Kedia or any of his associates and no cash was paid to him either by the Appe…

ACIT CC 6(4), Mumbai vs. Shantilal C. Sheth, Mumbai

ITA 2966/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2017AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra-CIT-DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, , , , मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “ जी मुंबई जी जी” खंडपीठ जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं, , , , शि"जीत डे, "याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra,Accountant Member and Saktijit Dey,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/ ITA No.2966/Mum/2015: िनधा"रण अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 वष" ACIT, Central Circle-6(4) Shri Shantilal C. Sheth R.No.32(1), Ground Floor, 9, Chemox House, 3rd Floor Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Barrack Road…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3549/DEL/2012[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ntries in the ledger of a firm (third party) did not represent assessee's income from undisclosed sources, was finding of the fact not giving rise to any referable question of law". d. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) "It has been 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…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3546/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 68

…ntries in the ledger of a firm (third party) did not represent assessee's income from undisclosed sources, was finding of the fact not giving rise to any referable question of law". d. Amarjit Singh Bakshi (HUF) Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2003) 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) "It has been 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…