Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

290 CTR 263High Court2016#102 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal authority for?

Assessment based solely on a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act requires the statement to be relatable to incriminating material or evidence found during the search, especially when considering Section 158BB(1) which restricts computation of undisclosed income to evidence found during search.

583

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,735 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v Harjeev Aggarwal · section 132(4) · section 158BB(1) · incriminating material · undisclosed income · search and seizure · statement recorded · income tax assessment

Also reported as

70 Taxmann.com 95

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 69A
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 158b(b)section 158bb(1)section 149(1)(c)section 4(2)section 158bbsection 158basection 153(a)section 201(3)section 150unexplained jewellerystatement under section 132(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/BANG/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.131 to 134/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Deputy Commissioner of F 113, 2CD, Central Chambers Income-tax 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Gandhinagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560 009 PAN NO : AAECS2377M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L., A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhot…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 132/BANG/2023[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.131 to 134/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Deputy Commissioner of F 113, 2CD, Central Chambers Income-tax 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Gandhinagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560 009 PAN NO : AAECS2377M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L., A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhot…

M/S. Spr Spirits Private Limited (Formerly Known As Spr Group Holdings Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 131/BANG/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2023AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Bharath L., A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

…ITA Nos.131 to 134/Bang/2023, M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.131 to 134/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2011-12 M/s. SPR Spirits Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as SPR Group Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) Deputy Commissioner of F 113, 2CD, Central Chambers Income-tax 2nd Floor, 2nd Main, Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Gandhinagar Bangalore Bengaluru 560 009 PAN NO : AAECS2377M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Bharath L., A.R. Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhot…

Mrs Sunita Shyam Malpani, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 25(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 344/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. Ito 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, Karanapartment, Kautilyabhavan, Lokhandwalacomplex, Bandra Bkc, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.Pan/Gir No.Acppm8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 10Section 143Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 68Section 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sunita Shyam Malpani, Vs. ITO 25(1)(3), 701,Plot No.117, Room No.703, KaranApartment, KautilyaBhavan, LokhandwalaComplex, Bandra BKC, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400053. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं.PAN/GIR No.ACPPM8552J (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Applicant by Mr.Ajay Singh.AR Respondent by Mr.RajendraChandekar.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 02.05.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 24.07 .2023 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of…

DCIT, CC- 28, New Delhi vs. Saarthak Vanijya India Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 3822/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shamim Yahya & Shri Anubhav Sharmaआ.अ.संसंसंसं/.I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"

Section 148Section 68

…I.T.A.No.3822/Del/2017 & CO No. 70/Del/2020 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.संसंसंसं/.I.T.A No.3822/Del/2017 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2007-08 िनधा"रणवष" िनधा"रणवष" DCIT, M/s Saarthak Vanijya India बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Central Circle-28, Ltd., Vs. Room No. 317, ARA Centre, 11, Goenka Lane, Shivtalla Jhandewalan Extn., Street, Kolkatta. New Delhi. PAN No. AACCR1635F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" Appellant अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" ""यथ" ""यथ"/Respondent ""यथ" ""यथ" & Cross Objection No. 70/Del/2020 (In I.T.A No…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 531/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, 2, Abil House, Ganesh Khind Road, Range Hill Corner, Pune-411 007 ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit Cent. Cir 2(3) 8Th Floor, R. No. 803, Old Cgo Bldg, Pratistha Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Pan – Abtpb8151F ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Shailja Rai, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…1 of 397 ITR): "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in Harjeev Aggarwal." 9. In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 6 ITR-OL 504 (Delhi); [2016] 290 CTR 263; [2016] SCC OnLine 15122 this court had held as follows (page 515 of 6 ITR-OL): "In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the assessee in its statement, under the provisions…

ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi vs. Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon

ITA 7061/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…ld that though the diary seized enable the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumptions is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Harjeev Aggarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95; 10/03/2016) held that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during search. In other words, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to su…

Lalman Yadav, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 16, New Delhi

ITA 5869/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Lalman Yadav Vs. Acit, Flat No. 401-402, Central Circle-16 Mahalaxmi Cghs Ltd., New Delhi Sector-43, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 Pan : Aazpy5305R (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

…ld that though the diary seized enable the revenue to presume that its contents are true, such presumptions is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Harjeev Aggarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95; 10/03/2016) held that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during search. In other words, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to su…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 to 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. ACIT, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. PAN : AALPC4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 ACIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Ka…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Heritage Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2261/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…u/s. 132(4) is not an incriminating material in absence of any other corroborative evidence. In support of said contention, he relied upon following decisions : (i). PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) (ii). CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Delhi). 6. Further, he submitted, the proposition that in absence of any incriminating material, no addition can be made in assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, is no more res integra in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 and others - judgment dated 24.04.2023).…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Heritage Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2260/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…u/s. 132(4) is not an incriminating material in absence of any other corroborative evidence. In support of said contention, he relied upon following decisions : (i). PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) (ii). CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Delhi). 6. Further, he submitted, the proposition that in absence of any incriminating material, no addition can be made in assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, is no more res integra in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 and others - judgment dated 24.04.2023).…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Heritage Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2259/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…u/s. 132(4) is not an incriminating material in absence of any other corroborative evidence. In support of said contention, he relied upon following decisions : (i). PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) (ii). CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Delhi). 6. Further, he submitted, the proposition that in absence of any incriminating material, no addition can be made in assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, is no more res integra in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 and others - judgment dated 24.04.2023).…

ACIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi vs. Heritage Beverages Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2258/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Aggarwal, AR &
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 68

…u/s. 132(4) is not an incriminating material in absence of any other corroborative evidence. In support of said contention, he relied upon following decisions : (i). PCIT vs. Best Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 397 ITR 82 (Delhi) (ii). CIT vs. Harjeev Aggarwal, 290 CTR 263 (Delhi). 6. Further, he submitted, the proposition that in absence of any incriminating material, no addition can be made in assessment u/s. 153A of the Act, is no more res integra in view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Abhisar Buildwell P. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 6580 of 2021 and others - judgment dated 24.04.2023).…

ACIT, Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Rishabraj Infra Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 3246/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Shir Pavan Kumar Gadaleita Nos. 3246/Mum/2022 (A.Y: 2015-16) Acit, C.Circle -2(1), Vs. Rishabraj Infrapvtltd., Old Cgo Bldg, 804, 212, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, 8Th Floor, M.K. Road, Bldg No. 3, Hari Om Mumbai – 400020. Plaza, Mg Road, Boravali (E), Mumbai-400066. Pan/Gir No. : Aadcv2975P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Riddhi Mishra.Dr Revenue By : Mr.Karan Jain.Ar Date Of Hearing 18.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai Passed U/Sec 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Ms.Riddhi Mishra.DRFor Respondent: Mr.Karan Jain.AR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68

…ing search, it is sine-qua-non that some incriminating material must have been found to correlate the undisclosed income with such ITA Nos. 3246Mum/2022 M/s Rishabraj Infra Pvt Ltd., Mumbai. statement. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/S Harjeev Aggarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95; 10/03/2016) held that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during- search. In other words, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to s…

Ajmera Pharmasure Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1136/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle HariyaFor Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69

…d legally sustainable addition on the basis of surrender during search, it is sine-qua-non that some incriminating material must have been found to correlate the undisclosed income with such statement. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT V/s Harjeev Aggarwal (70 Taxmann.com 95; 10/03/2016) held that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during search. In other words, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to su…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 332/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of 12 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 331/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of 12 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

M/S Sahaj Ankur Developers, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 are allowed and the appeal of the assessee for AY 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/MUM/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Am & Shri Aby Tvarkey, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.330/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.331/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.332/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Sahaj Ankur Developers बिधम/ Dcit-Cc, 3(4) B-301, Sorrento Building 19Th Floor, Air India Vs. Besant Road, Santcruz (W) Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400054. स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aawfs2944L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Dr Manoj Kumar (DR)
Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(2)Section 153A

…In support of these contention, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of 12 ITA. Nos. 330 to 332/Mum/2020 AYs. 2011-12 to 2013-14 Sahaj Ankur Developers Income Tax v. Harjeev Aggarwal [(2016) 290 CTR 263]. The Ld.DR raised the contention that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) in itself is an incriminating material and also argued that in the absence of supporting documentary evidences for the unsecured loans borrowed are also considered as incriminating facts and therefore, the additions are rightly made by the Assessing Officer in respect of loa…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3), Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 530/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 132oSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…1 of 397 ITR): "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in Harjeev Aggarwal." 9. In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 6 ITR-OL 504 (Delhi); [2016] 290 CTR 263; [2016] SCC OnLine 15122 this court had held as follows (page 515 of 6 ITR-OL): "In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the assessee in its statement, under the provisions…

Shri Avinash Nivrutti Bhosale, Pune vs. Dy CIT Central Cir-2(3, Mumbai

Accordingly, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 529/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

Section 132Section 132oSection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 69C

…1 of 397 ITR): "38. Fifthly, statements recorded under section 132(4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material as has been explained by this court in Harjeev Aggarwal." 9. In CIT v. Harjeev Aggarwal [2016] 6 ITR-OL 504 (Delhi); [2016] 290 CTR 263; [2016] SCC OnLine 15122 this court had held as follows (page 515 of 6 ITR-OL): "In view of the settled legal position, the first and foremost issue to be addressed is whether a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act would by itself be sufficient to assess the income, as disclosed by the assessee in its statement, under the provisions…