Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel

224 ITR 180High Court1997#2629 most cited

What is Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel authority for?

Once an assessee discharges the initial burden of proving the identity of the depositor/lender and the genuineness of the transaction under Section 68, the Assessing Officer generally cannot delve into the 'source of source' of those funds.

44

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Ram Narain Goel · 224 ITR 180 · Section 68 · cash credits · unexplained money · burden of proof · genuineness of transaction · source of source · identity and creditworthiness · Section 131 · physical inspection report

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

Issues it is cited on

source of sourceaddition under section 68addition u/s 68share application moneysection 145(3)documents seizedrule 46aerroneous and prejudicialgenuineness of the transactionincome-tax officerundisclosed incomesection 133(6)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Income Tax v. Tam Narain Goel

Shri Ramesh Chandra Parashar, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 708/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Pradeep Kumar Sharma, Dabra vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 707/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Lalta Prasad Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 706/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 705/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Kamlesh Kumar Choudhary, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 704/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Khemraj Singh Chauhan, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 703/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Sukhdev Singh Dhariwal, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 702/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Shri Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Gwalior vs. The DCIT 1(1), Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 701/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

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

…the basis of dumb Satyapal Wassam papers 13 (2008) 25 SOT 387 Since paper/documents seized on 111- (Kol) Nirmal search were found to be untenable 118 Fashions (P) L. v. and contrary to ther evidence on DCIT record impugned addition was not justified 14 (1997) 224 ITR 180 That suspicion however strong Para 5 119- CIT vs. Ram Narain cannot take the place of evidence & 6 121 Goel or proof 15 (2003) 262 ITR 295 It is settled proposition that the Para 3 122- (P & H) CIT vs. presumption however strong 124 Faqir Chaman Lal cannot substitute evidence 16 (2001) 250 ITR 539 The finding of the Income Tax Para 5 125- CIT vs.…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…the ‘source of source’.” 38.2 Further reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i. [2014] 361 ITR 220 (Delhi) CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. ii. [2015] 57 taxmann.com 176 (Gujarat) Smt. Neelamben Gopaldas Agrawal v. ITO iii. [1997] 224 ITR 180 (P&H) CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel iv. [2014] 366 ITR 217 (Rajasthan) CIT v. Jai Kumar Bakliwal v. [2013] 214 Taxman 440 (Allahabad) Zafa Ahmad & Co. v. CIT vi. 103 ITR 344 at 349-350 ( Patna) Saraogi Credit Corporation v CIT vii. 59 ITR 632 at 636 (Assam) TolaRam Daga v cIT viii. 49 ITR 273 at 279 (Mad) S. Hastimal v CIT ix. 151 ITR 150 at 156-157 (P…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1765/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…ndustrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the standard o…

ACIT, Circle-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Simplex Infrastructure Ltd., Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1764/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…ndustrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the standard o…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1573/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…ndustrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the standard o…

M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., Kolkata vs. Addl. CIT, Range - 12, Kolkata

In the result Ground no. 1 & 3 of the revenue are allowed in part

ITA 1572/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd…….............................................................……………………..Appellant 27, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata – 700 017 [Pan : Aaecs 0765 R] Vs. Addl. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-12 Kolkata……...............................…….…..Respondent Assessment Year: 2011-12 Assessment Year: 2012-13

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 80

…ndustrial Holdings Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 422 (Cal) The Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the following cases has also laid down similar propositions of law:-  CIT vs. Faqir Chaman Lal reported in 262 ITR 295 (P&H)  CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel reported in 224 ITR 180 (P&H) 10. In our view, the assessee has discharged the primary burden that is cast on it to prove the genuineness of these transactions. The Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A), in our opinion, have not come out with irrefutable proof to negate the evidences submitted by the assessee. It is not the case of the revenue that the standard o…

M/S Alliance Engineers and Construction, Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the first issue raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the second issue is allowed

ITA 6180/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2011-12 Alliance Engineers & Vs. Addl.Cit, Construction, Range-1, 1645, Sector-29, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan: Aakfa0810A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13Th September, 2015 Of The Cit(A)-Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.25,04,347/- On Account Of Depreciation.

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Section 32(2)

…tnership firm, once a partner has accepted that he has advanced certain sums to the firm, no addition in the hands of the firm can be made and investment can be examined in the hands of the partner u/s 69, etc.:- i) Punjab & Haryana High Court in 208 CTR 459, 224 ITR 180; ii) Madras High Court in Taj Browellers 291 ITR 232; iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lovely Exports; and iv) Allahabad High Court in 141 ITR 706. 14. He accordingly submitted that addition, if any, can be made in the hands of the partner and not in the hands of the partnership firm. However, since the partner has sufficient means to extent the cas…

R.D. Foundation, Ghaziabad vs. ITO (Exemption), Ward, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 7877/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SHFor Respondent: SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR
Section 10Section 11Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2010-11 R.D. FOUNDATION, VS. ITO, WARD (EXEMPTION) C/O RRA TAXINDIA, GHAZIABAD D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION CGO COMPLEX-I, PART-I, NEW DELHI – 49 HAPUR ROAD, (PAN: AABTR3819D) GHAZIABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : DR. RAKESH GUPTA, ADV. & SH. SHUBHAM SOBIT, ADV. Department by : SH. SUNRENDER PAL, SR. DR. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 24.10.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Ghaziabad relating…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 7 vs. Bikram Singh

The appeal is allowed in the above terms

ITA/55/2017HC Delhi25 Aug 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

Section 68

…Ltd. 237 TAXMAN 104 (hereafter `Shivdhooti') and Dwarkadhish (supra), Sarogi Credit Corporation vs. CIT 103 ITR 344, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hanuman Agarwal 151 ITR 150, Addl CIT vs. Bahri Bros.(P) 154 ITR 244, CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel [1997] 224 ITR 180, Smt. Neelamben Gopaldas Agrawal vs. ITO [2015] 57 taxmann.com 176 (Guj), to submit that it is settled law that the source of the source need not be explained. 22. Mr. C. S. Aggarwal further urges that findings of fact ought not to be interfered with at this stage and the question whether the credits were properly explained or not being questions…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Elbee Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 456/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम. बालगनेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…at they were jama kharchi companies is an unsubstantiated allegation. While the assessing officer may have such suspicion, he has not brought out any material on record to back such an allegation. As held in the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) and various other cases, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence for making addition. So far as the appellant is concerned, it has provided confirmation letters from the creditors, loans are through banking channels, the creditors are assessed to Income tax and loans to the appellant are duly reflected in their balance she…

ACIT, Meerut vs. M/S. Space Age Research & Technology Foundation Charitable Trust, Meerut

In the result Ground No. 1 and 3 of the appeal of the revenue is allowed and ground No

ITA 4622/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Space Age Research & Vs. Circle-2, Meerut Technology Foundation, Charitable Trust, Railway Road, Meerut Pan: Aabts7321M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Sapra, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 13(2)Section 13(3)Section 68

…age 4 of the assessment order against the above creditor, it is evident that the AO had added the amount on mere suspicion. It is by now well settled law that suspicion howsoever great, cannot take the place of evidence as held by P & H High Court in the case 224 ITR 180, CIT Vs. Ram Narain Goel vi. As regards the deposit of cash of Rs.20,000/- on 04/07/2008 and Rs.40,000/-on 09/07/2008 in her above SB A/c, it is submitted that she is working with M/s Golden Strand (P) Ltd. New Delhi drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- pm vide certificate placed at page 43 IB of the paper book. A copy of her statement of affairs for F…

The DCIT, (It), Cir-1(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Michel Bau Gmbh & Co. Kg, Kolkata

In the result both the appeals by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 395/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A Nos.395 & 396/Kol/2016 Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: None (Adjournment request rejected. )

…ught on record to indicate, much less establish, that any payment for such purpose had actually been made by Atirath Commercial P'vt.. Ltd. It is just a guess work based on conjecture and surmise. As held in the decision in the case of CIT vs. Ram Narain Goel 224 ITR 180 (P&H) and various other cases, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for evidence for making addition. As held in the cases of Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. (supra), Surya Foods & Agro Ltd. (supra), Dresser Valve India (P) Ltd. (supra) etc. cited by the appellant, merely because the order is from a govt./ semi- government body, it does not follow,…