Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

90 ITR 271Supreme Court of India1973#380 most cited

What is Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali authority for?

The Supreme Court established principles for best judgment assessments, stating that some guesswork is inevitable but the assessment must be bona fide, rational, and free from bias or capriciousness. An appellate authority cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Assessing Officer unless the AO's assessment is shown to be biased, irrational, vindictive, or capricious, especially when the assessee fails to provide proper accounts or counter-evidence.

232

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali · best judgment assessment · rejection of books of account · Section 144 Income Tax Act · Section 145(3) Income Tax Act · appellate authority power · substitution of AO's judgment · rational basis assessment · estimation of income · assessee non-compliance · arbitrary or capricious assessment · bona fide estimate

Also reported as

32 STC 77

Sections most often in play

Section 148Section 132(4)Section 132Section 133ASection 139Section 147Section 144Section 145(3)

Issues it is cited on

section 132(3)section 13(1)(c)section 131(1)section 13(1)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 153a(1)(b)best judgment assessmentloose papersretracted statementrejection of books of accountsection 250(4)

Judgments citing Commissioner of Sales Tax v. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangrai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 372/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangrai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 371/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

ACIT, Circle-1, Hosur vs. M/S. Uthangrai Sri Vidya Mandir Educational Trust, Krishnagiri

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2017-18 in ITA Nos

ITA 370/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 370, 371 & 372 /Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 & C.O Nos.3, 4 & 5/Chny/2021 [In I.T.A. Nos.370, 371 & 372/Chny/2020] The Assistant M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya Commissioner Of Income Vs. Mandir Educational Trust, Tax, No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Circle-1, Uthangarai, Hosur. Krishnagiri – 635 207. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent / Cross Objector) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 644, 645, 646 & 647/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years:2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Uthangarai Sri Vidya The Assistant Mandir Educational Trust, Vs. Commissioner Of Income No.115, Ramamurthy Nagar, Tax, Uthangarai, Circle-1, Krishnagiri – 635 207. Hosur. Pan: Aadts 6092D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) &

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 153A

…he above seized materials had a bearing on income of - 4 - ITA Nos.370 to 372, 644 to 647, 714 to 717/CHNY/2020 & CO Nos.3 to 5/CHNY/2021 the assessee for A.Y. 2011-12. Also in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs H.M.Esufalli's, H.M.Abdulali reported in 90 ITR 271(SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that sales of 19 days was allowed to be the basis for estimate of sales for the entire year, The same analogy can also be extended to other assessment years in the case of the assessee. Hence, the contention that the seized materials of one year cannot be used for other years cannot be accepted, moreover the se…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of Revenue’s appeal are dismissed

ITA 112/SRT/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.112/Srt/2021 (Ay 2012-13) (Hearing In Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner Of Dmc Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-Tax, Central Circle-3, 9Th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5Th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 Pan No. Aadcd 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सुरत "ायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.सं./ITA No.112/SRT/2021 (AY 2012-13) (Hearing in Physical Court) Deputy Commissioner of DMC Construction Pvt. Ltd Income-tax, Central Circle-3, 9th Trivedi Niwas, Rashtriya Vs Surat, Room No. 507, 5th Floor, Shala Road, Ville Parle West, Aayakar Bhawan, Majura Gate, Mumbai-400056 Surat-395001 PAN No. AADCD 2089 C अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by Shri P. M. Jagasheth, C.A राज" की ओर से /Revenue by Shr…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/PAN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…mounts to unaccounted sales and hence the estimation of the under-invoiced amount is justified and correct and legally valid. This view is also supported by the ratio of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H. M. Abduali (SC) 90 ITR 271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is…

M/S Salitho Ores Private Limited, Panaji vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - M1, Margao

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 72/PAN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…mounts to unaccounted sales and hence the estimation of the under-invoiced amount is justified and correct and legally valid. This view is also supported by the ratio of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H. M. Abduali (SC) 90 ITR 271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is…

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Panaji vs. M/S Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd, Panaji

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 100/PAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji21 Sept 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury(Through Virtual Hearing) M/S. Salitho Ores Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit, Circle-1, Salgaocar Bhavan, Altinho, Margao Panaji, Goa. Pan: Aabcs 8859 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ, DR
Section 43B

…mounts to unaccounted sales and hence the estimation of the under-invoiced amount is justified and correct and legally valid. This view is also supported by the ratio of the decision in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. H.M. Esufali H. M. Abduali (SC) 90 ITR 271. In light of the facts as discussed above an amount of Rs.105,77,75,066/-, as computed in the table in para 3.3.4 above is added to the total income of the assessee on account of suppression of sales value/under-invoicing. Penalty u/s 217 (1)(c) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for suppression of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income is…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2196/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…ing the earlier years is as under: S.No. A.Y. Agricultural Income 1 2011-12 16,74,990 2 2012-13 13,73,025 3 2013-14 20,24,900 4 2014-15 34,85,200 21. The AO by applying the principle of extrapolation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC) proceeded to estimate the income in the hands of the assessee and thereby excess income of the assessee of Rs.17,67,596/- has been treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 22. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for making cash payment for purchase of two shops on the basis of certain incriminating docu…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2195/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…ing the earlier years is as under: S.No. A.Y. Agricultural Income 1 2011-12 16,74,990 2 2012-13 13,73,025 3 2013-14 20,24,900 4 2014-15 34,85,200 21. The AO by applying the principle of extrapolation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC) proceeded to estimate the income in the hands of the assessee and thereby excess income of the assessee of Rs.17,67,596/- has been treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 22. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for making cash payment for purchase of two shops on the basis of certain incriminating docu…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2194/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…ing the earlier years is as under: S.No. A.Y. Agricultural Income 1 2011-12 16,74,990 2 2012-13 13,73,025 3 2013-14 20,24,900 4 2014-15 34,85,200 21. The AO by applying the principle of extrapolation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC) proceeded to estimate the income in the hands of the assessee and thereby excess income of the assessee of Rs.17,67,596/- has been treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 22. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for making cash payment for purchase of two shops on the basis of certain incriminating docu…

Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(1), Mumbai vs. Shri Pratap Uttam Purohit, Mumbai

ITA 2193/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Kumar Purohit, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr. A.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 68Section 69C

…ing the earlier years is as under: S.No. A.Y. Agricultural Income 1 2011-12 16,74,990 2 2012-13 13,73,025 3 2013-14 20,24,900 4 2014-15 34,85,200 21. The AO by applying the principle of extrapolation laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Eusafali 90 ITR 271 (SC) proceeded to estimate the income in the hands of the assessee and thereby excess income of the assessee of Rs.17,67,596/- has been treated as unexplained income under section 68 of the Act. 22. Similarly, the AO also made addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- for making cash payment for purchase of two shops on the basis of certain incriminating docu…

DCIT, Coimbatore vs. M/S Srs Trading Company, Erode

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as CO filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 938/CHNY/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.938/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2019-2020 & C.O. No. 15/Chny/2022 [In Ita No. 938/Chny/2022] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Srs Trading Company, Income Tax, Central Circle 1, 23/4, Venkatachalam Street, No. 63, Race Course Road, Erode 638 001. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan:Adifs8621A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) Department By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit Assessee By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 26.07.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2019-20. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under: 1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Erroneous On Facts Of The Case & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Estimating The Suppression Of Sales @ 200% By Extrapolation Based On The Evidence Available For 3 Months Is Not Acceptable.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate (Erode)For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 133A

…2019 had either been hidden or destroyed by the assessee. Hence the AO has logically extrapolated and estimated the undisclosed income for the AY 2019-20. Reliance is placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CST V. H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali [1973] 90 ITR 271 wherein the Sales tax officer estimated the sales outside books for the entire year based on the evidence available for 19 days. The Supreme Court held that so long as the estimate made by STO was not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same could not be questioned. 2.2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in observing that the action of the AO in e…

Sushilabai Dnaneshwar Vansale, Solapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2829/PUN/2016[1997-98 (B.P 2002-03)]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2023

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri M.G. Jasnani
Section 158B

…have extrapolated her income for the period for which the evidence is not found, I find that the Appellant’s this argument is contrary to the law laid down by the honourable Supreme Court in the case Commissioner of Sales Tax v H M Esufali H M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC). In this case the honourable Supreme Court held that the estimate could be made, for the whole year on the basis of few days suppressed sales. It is seen that the in the Appellant’s case, the evidence was found for the receipt of rent for the part of the year therefore, the extrapolation for the receipt of rent can be done for the entire year…

Dy CIT CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. PAN India Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1717/MUM/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…me of hearing, attention of the assessee's counsel was invited by the Hon'ble Bnech to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dayawanti Vs. CIT [84 taxmann.com 296] [Del.], wherein reliance was placed on CST Vs. HM. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 190 ITR 271]. We submit that the same is distinguishable on facts as explained hereinafter: Dayawati's case 2.22. The facts in Dayawanti's case (supra) were as under:  Search and seizure operation was carried out on 22.03.2006 in the premises of M/s. Balajee Perfumes Group, which manufactures Gutka. The assessee along with other family members ie her three s…

DCIT-CC-7(1), Mumbai vs. M/S.PAN India Network Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1716/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…me of hearing, attention of the assessee's counsel was invited by the Hon'ble Bnech to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Dayawanti Vs. CIT [84 taxmann.com 296] [Del.], wherein reliance was placed on CST Vs. HM. Esufali H.M. Abdulali 190 ITR 271]. We submit that the same is distinguishable on facts as explained hereinafter: Dayawati's case 2.22. The facts in Dayawanti's case (supra) were as under:  Search and seizure operation was carried out on 22.03.2006 in the premises of M/s. Balajee Perfumes Group, which manufactures Gutka. The assessee along with other family members ie her three s…

Dharmik Cement Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

ITA 331/KOL/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…upport of its claim/grounds was filed before him. The assessee remained absent on the dates of hearing. Therefore, ld. CIT(A) passed ex-parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee. 8. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned additions made u/s 68 of the Act at Rs. 57,77,00,00/-. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had not made any further efforts to pursue it case, file any other documentary evidence or paper book and written submissions…

M/S Well Plan Tradelink (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1127/KOL/2019[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2008-2009
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 14ASection 234BSection 263Section 68

…its claim/grounds was filed before him. The assessee remained absent on the said dates of hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee. 9. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned additions made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 1,12,00,000/- and Rs.9,160/- made u/s. 14A. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had not made any further efforts to file any other documentary evidence or paper book and writ…

M/S. Jsm Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2492/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2022AY 2012-13
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, पीठ “C” , कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “C”KOLKATA सम" : "ी मनीष बोरड, लेखा एवं "ी संजय शमा" "या"यक सद"य Before: Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member and Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं.य/ Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम M/s. JSM Properties Income Tax Officer Pvt. Ltd. Ward 1(2), Kolkata V/s. 7/1A Grant Lane, 4th Aaykar Bhawan Fl.,Room No.4K, P-7 Chowringhee Sq., Kolkata-700 001 Kolkata-700 069. PAN: AABCO 5998B अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DR…

Savile Distributors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 408/KOL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH “A” KOLKATA Before: Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Manish Borad, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2012-13 बनाम Savile Distributors I.T.O. Ward 2(4), Kolkata Pvt.Ltd. 40 C AaykarBhawan, V/s. P-7 Chowringhee Sq, 7th Fl., Chittaranjan Avenue, 3rd Fl, Room No. 4 Kolkata-69. Kolkata-12. PAN:AAICS 7476H अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent .. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ None By Appellant/Assessee ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Shri Vijay Kumar,Addl.CIT Ld.DR Respondent/Department सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 28-09-2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/ 31-10 -2022 Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R…

M/S. Megapix Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 14(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1297/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Sept 2022AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

…ment Not known dt. 18.06.2016/03.09.2016 and assessee remained absent on both the dates of hearing. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) passed ex parte order respectfully following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.M Esufali H.M Abdulali (1973) 90 ITR 271 (SC) dismissing the appeal of assessee. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal challenging the impugned addition made u/s. 68 of the Act at Rs. 32,51,00,000/-. Apart from filing appeal, the assessee had made no further efforts to file any other documentary evidence or paper book and written submissions in support of its…