CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

369 ITR 171High Court2014#332 most cited

What is CIT v. Sunil Agarwal ( authority for?

An addition to income based solely on a statement recorded under section 132(4) is not sustainable if that statement has been retracted and there is no corroborative material.

254

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sunil Agarwal · 369 ITR 171 · section 132(4) · retracted statement · corroborative material · evidentiary value · search and seizure · undisclosed income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153CSection 147Section 69ASection 69CSection 132

Issues it is cited on

section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 153(a)section 158bbaccumulated profitsretracted statementsection 94section 2(22)section 2(22)(e)deemed dividendsection 268aretraction of statement

Judgments citing CIT v. Sunil Agarwal (

M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-4, Surat

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee (in IT(SS)A No

ITA 1365/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1367/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (Huf), Vs. The Acit, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/S. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqhs5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1365/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/O. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Surat. Jaddakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaccn3603R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.340 To 343/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2012-13) (Virtual Court Hearing) Moulimani Impex Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, C-805, Oberoi Splendor, Opp. Majas Surat. Depot, Jvlr, Jogeshwari (East) Mumbai-400060. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadcm4913C (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./It(Ss)A Nos.347 To 351/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2009-10 To 2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Anoop Yogendra Jain, Vs. The Dcit, Central Circle-4, 406, Saryu Chambers, 4T H Floor, Surat. Jadakhadi, Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahopj3837B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1367/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Sanjay Kumar Choudhary (HUF), Vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-4, (Prop. M/s. Mayank Impex), Surat. C/o. 408, Saryu Diamond Complex, Jaddakhadi Mahidharpura, Surat-395003. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AAQHS5732R (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./ITA No. 1365/AHD/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: ( 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/s. Nazar Impex Pvt. Ltd., The ACIT, Central Circle-4, Vs. C/o. 408, S…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Hal Offshore Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6956/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Vs Hal Offshore Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is One Of The Group Companies Of Mmg Group & Has Business Interest In Several Segments Like Chartering & Leasing Of Vessels To Ongc & Shipping, Etc. In This Case, A Search & Seizure Operation U/S 132 Of The It Act, 1961 Was Carried Out On 28Th March, 2015. During The Course Of Search, Documents & Data Storage Devices, Etc., Belonging To The Assessee Were Found & Seized. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th July, 2016 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Declaring The Total Income At Rs.12,15,49,580/-. Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 20Th May, 2016 Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee. Subsequently, Notice U/S 142(1) Along With A Questionnaire Was Issued To The Assessee Calling For Certain Information. The Assessee Complied To The Said Questionnaire By Filing The Requisite Details.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)

…come which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income-tax Department. 22.1 Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal reported in 369 ITR 171, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that a statement is not a limited licence to script the financial obituary of an assessee. Referring to various other decisions, he submitted that an admission or acquiescence cannot be the foundation for assessment. Admission made by the assessee is an important piece of evidence, but, it cannot…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Moon Beverages Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, we hold that addition of share capital in the year under consideration has been made without relying on any incriminating material found during the course of search

ITA 6955/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2014-15 Acit, Vs Moon Beverages Ltd., Central Circle-15, 25, Bazar Lane, New Delhi. Bengali Market, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J Co No.06/Del/2019 (Ita No.6955/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Moon Beverages Ltd., Vs. Acit, 25, Bazar Lane, Central Circle-15, Bengali Market, New Delhi New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1635J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Ms Paramita M. Biswas, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.12.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2Nd August, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-26, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. Co No.06/Del/2019 The Assessee Has Filed Co Against The Appeal Filed By The Revenue. For The Sake Of Convenience, These Were Heard & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Paramita M. Biswas, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153A

…information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income-tax Department. 21 CO No.06/Del/2019 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT vs. Naresh Kumar Aggarwal reported in 369 ITR 171, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court has held that a statement is not a limited licence to script the financial obituary of an assessee. Referring to various other decisions, he submitted that an admission or acquiescence cannot be the foundation for assessment. Admission made by the assessee is an important piece of evidence, but, it cannot…

Jasmin K Ajmera, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 983/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 983/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jasmin K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Vs. Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-7827-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1140/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Ashish K. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), Ajmera House, 4Th Floor R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम Pathakwadi, L.T.Marg Old Cgo Building, / Vs. Mumbai – 400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabpa-9075-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.1113/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Minal M. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Adepa-9661-N (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 539/Mum/2020 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Avani J. Ajmera Dcit-2(2), 4Th Floor, Ajmera House, R. No. 806, 8Th Floor बिाम/ Vs. Pathakwadi, L. T. Marg, Old Cgo Building, Mumbai-400 002 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Addpa-9331-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

Section 143(3)Section 153A

…, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to sustain additions on the basis of recorded statement. Similar is the view of Hon'ble High Court in an earlier judgment of CIT V/s Sunil Aggarwal ( 379 ITR 367; 2016) and also the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Shri Ramdas Motor Transport (238 ITR 177) wherein Hon'ble Court refused to give any evidentiary value to the statement made by the assessee u/s 132(4) as the department could not find any unaccounted money, article or thing or incriminating document either at the premises…

Pawan Kumar Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 15 – • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48.…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 15 – • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48.…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 15 – • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48.…

Ashish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) ITA Nos.199to202/Ind/2019 Ashish Chhaparia(others) vs. ITO Asst.Years –2011-12 & 2012-13 - 15 – • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48.…

DCIT 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Trishul Realty Infra Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4042/MUM/2019[201-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)

…s, which 29 ITA.NOs. 4041 & 4042/MUM/2019 C.O. No. 73/MUM/2020 & 16/Mum/2021 M/s. Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of an assessee. 25. In CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2014] 369 ITR 171/[2015] 53 taxmann.com 306, a Division Bench of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act which is retracted cannot constitute a basis for an order under Section 158BC of the Act…..” In view of the aforesaid, we do not appreciate the contentions of the Revenue that the statements recorde…

DCIT CC 7(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4041/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kashyap
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(a)

…s, which 29 ITA.NOs. 4041 & 4042/MUM/2019 C.O. No. 73/MUM/2020 & 16/Mum/2021 M/s. Trishul Realty Infra Pvt. Ltd., are retracted subsequently, do not form the sole basis for computing undisclosed income of an assessee. 25. In CIT v. Naresh Kumar Agarwal [2014] 369 ITR 171/[2015] 53 taxmann.com 306, a Division Bench of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act which is retracted cannot constitute a basis for an order under Section 158BC of the Act…..” In view of the aforesaid, we do not appreciate the contentions of the Revenue that the statements recorde…

Sh. Sandeep Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2963/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri Kuldip Singh[Through Video Conferencing] Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…she relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber & Produce Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). She also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs Naresh Kumar Aggarwal, reported in 369 ITR 171, wherein it is held that mere confessional statement without there being any documentary proof, shall not be used in evidence against the persons who made such statement. 5. On the contrary, the Learned DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and submitted that assessee himself admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 1 crore and said statement was ne…

Amit H Patel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 3((4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harith, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhiinji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produc…

Jayesh Shantilal Vira, Mumbai vs. ACIT-4(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the three assessees are allowed

ITA 72/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Deshpande, D.R
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhiinji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produc…

M/S.Neminath Mumbai Shelter, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2554/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Ravish Soodita No(S). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(S): 2009-10 To 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062

For Appellant: Ms. Ritu Kamal Kishore, A.RFor Respondent: S/shri G.N Makwana & Sushil Kumar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Neminath Mumbai Shelter vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai ITA Nos. 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 A.Ys 2009-10,2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” Bench, Mumbai Before Shri M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member ITA No(s). 2554, 2885, 2952, 3526 & 3527/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year(s): 2009-10 to 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) Neminath Mumbai Shelter DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Mumbai 101/102, Kalpak Apartment, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Bldg, Road No. 16, Sidharth Nagar, M.K Road, Mumbai – 400 020 Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai – 400 062…

M/S Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-6(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1732/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Ravish Sood ()

…Page 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No.1732-1733/MUM/2019 (Assessment Years: 2013-14& 2016-17) M/s Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd Dy. Commissioner of Income- 401, Hall mark Business Plaza, Vs. tax-Central Circle 6(2), Off. Western Express Highway, 19th Floor, Air India Building, Kalanagar, Bandra East, Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 001. Mumbai – 400 021. PAN No. AAACE2460K (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Commissioner of Income- M/s Ekta Housing Pvt. Ltd tax-Central Circle 6(2), Vs. 401, Hall mark B…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…ese have been duly retracted. Hence without corroborative material addition only based upon the retracted statement is not sustainable. For this proposition following case laws are germane: • CIT Vs. Sunil Agarwal (379 ITR 367) • CIT Vs. Naresh Kumar Agarwal (369 ITR 171) • DCIT Vs. Narendra Garg & Ashok Garg (AOP) (ITA No. 1531 & 1532 of 2007 dated 28.7.2016) • DCIT Vs. Marathon Fiscal Pvt. Ltd. (ITA no. 5783 & 5784/Mum/2017 dated 28.8.2019) • Tribhuvandas Bhimji Zaveri (ITA 2250 & 2251/Mum/2013 dt. 4.11.2015) 48. It may also be pertinent to note here that no seized material said to be incriminating was produced…