Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

26 ITR 775Supreme Court of India1954#40 most cited

What is Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

Corroborative evidence is essential to support evidence found on third-party premises, and an assessment cannot be based on suspicion, surmises, or conjecture.

1,061

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT · corroborative evidence · third-party premise · suspicion · surmises · conjecture · assessment · Income-tax Officer · evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132Section 68Section 153CSection 153ASection 132(4)Section 115BBESection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 23(3)circular tradingsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 292crejection of books of accountloose paperssection 145(3)documents seizedsection 34section 145on-money

Judgments citing Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2231/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

…sessee requires to be construed as reasonable and the decision of an authority based on misplaced suspicion, conjecture and surmises is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. 7.2…

DCIT, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru vs. Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bengaluru

ITA 2229/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

…sessee requires to be construed as reasonable and the decision of an authority based on misplaced suspicion, conjecture and surmises is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. 7.2…

Kanva Diagnostic Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. DCIT - Central Circle, 1(3), Bangalore

ITA 2182/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri RE Balasubramanyam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das, CIT and Shri Pranay Nahar
Section 132

…sessee requires to be construed as reasonable and the decision of an authority based on misplaced suspicion, conjecture and surmises is not sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. 7.2…

Bhartiben Chandulal Dosani, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kalyan

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainbhartiben Chandulal Dosani Vs. Ito, Ward 1(1) 502, Madhuban Apartment, Kalyan. Near Milan Apartment, Anjurphata, Kamtaghar, Bhiwandi – 421302. Pan/Gir No. Aiepd1738L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 250Section 69A

…does not mean that cash-in-hand as on 31.3.2015 and 31.3.2016, duly shown in the balance sheet and disclosed to the department in the respective income tax returns filed much earlier, is unexplained...." In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take the place of reality and for making addition/ assessment of the alleged income, it is for the AO to have proved beyond all reasonable doubts.: "the Income-tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and ple…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4878/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…, evidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and used against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offends the principles of natural justice [M. G. Thomakutty V/s. CIT 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). A well-known mercantile custom can always be relied on by the authorities [Laxmi Co. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 461, 472 (All)]. The AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 27 ITR 126 (SC). Th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4872/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…, evidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and used against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offends the principles of natural justice [M. G. Thomakutty V/s. CIT 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). A well-known mercantile custom can always be relied on by the authorities [Laxmi Co. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 461, 472 (All)]. The AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law - Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 27 ITR 126 (SC).…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue

ITA 4866/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…, evidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and used against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offends the principles of natural justice [M. G. Thomakutty V/s. CIT 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). A well-known mercantile custom can always be relied on by the authorities [Laxmi Co. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 461, 472 (All)]. The AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 27 ITR 126 (SC). Th…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 5(2), Mumbai, Nariman Point vs. Agv Consultants, Borivali (E), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 4865/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 131Section 133ASection 250Section 68

…, evidence brought on record without the knowledge of the assessee and used against him without giving him an opportunity to rebut it offends the principles of natural justice [M. G. Thomakutty V/s. CIT 34 ITR 501 (Ker); Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). A well-known mercantile custom can always be relied on by the authorities [Laxmi Co. V/s. CIT 37 ITR 461, 472 (All)]. The AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings, and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law - Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s. CIT 27 ITR 126 (SC).…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udiapur, Udaipur

ITA 709/JODH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…eeded only suspicion, without any cogent material evidence. It is settled principle of law that an allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 2.10 The ld. AO has also added th…

Ashiana Buildprop Private Limited, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

ITA 706/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur26 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 132Section 145(3)Section 153ASection 234ASection 250

…eeded only suspicion, without any cogent material evidence. It is settled principle of law that an allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 2.10 The ld. AO has also added th…

Cottage Handicraft Textile Emporium, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 183/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: The Hearing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. Tanuj Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Swapnil Parihar, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ontended that the learned AO arbitrarily and without any basis made a trading addition of rupees fifty lakhs which is nearly equivalent to the turnover of the appellant o Rs. Rs 51,12,461/- The appellant relied on the judgment of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that assessment cannot be made on guesswork without any reference to any material on record. Further the appellant has contended that no opportunity/show-cause was given by the Id. A.O. in respect of the proposed estimation of income after rejection of 9 Cottage Handicraft Textile Emporium vs. DCIT books of acc…

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

…impugned additions have been made merely on suspicion. It is trite that no addition can be can be made merely on suspicion. It is well settled that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of reality. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 3. Onus on the AO- not discharged: 3.1 What is apparent is Real – Onus not discharged: It is a settled law that what is apparent is real unless controverted. The onus lay upon the person, who alleges that what is apparent is not real. Kindly refer CIT (Central) v/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), followed in CIT v/s Bedi & Co. P…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1283/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT
Section 132(4)

…e of the Appellant. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC): "As regards the second contention, we are in entir…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1281/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT
Section 132(4)

…e of the Appellant. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC): "As regards the second contention, we are in entir…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri.Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…IT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukkottai

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

…IT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukottai

ITA 1276/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

Section 132(4)

…299 ITR 179 (P&H) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vagu…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

ITA 1275/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…IT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. K. Rethinam, Dindigul

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1274/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin,CIT
Section 132(4)

…e of the Appellant. As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of CBI Vs. VC Shukla & Others (1998) 3 SCC 410, Common Cause (A Registered Society) Vs. Union of India (2017) 77 taxmann.com 254 (SC) and Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third party premise. In order to properly appreciate the issue, it is useful to refer to the following extract from the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC): "As regards the second contention, we are in entir…

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 3559/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 37Section 41Section 68Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…. 41. It is trite law that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. Th…