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

Kath Brothers, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 77/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Kath Brothers ACIT, Vs. Dausa Road, VPO-Toonga Central Circle-03, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANFK3974G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

Shri Sridhar Pandey S/O, Auraiya vs. A.C.I.T.-2, Agra

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 495/AGR/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2002-03

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

…urt in the case of CIT Vs. Chaman Lal Dhingra (1994) 121 Taxation 272, 273 has held that the seized document cannot taken place of proof rather they merely create suspicion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 has held that there must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment u/s 143(3). In the case of CBI Vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, 425, 426 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is incumbent upon the person relying upon these entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts. In other words the entr…

Sh. Sridhar Pandey, Auraiya vs. A.C.I.T.-2, Agra

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 494/AGR/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: : Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 132Section 153ASection 250

…urt in the case of CIT Vs. Chaman Lal Dhingra (1994) 121 Taxation 272, 273 has held that the seized document cannot taken place of proof rather they merely create suspicion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 has held that there must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment u/s 143(3). In the case of CBI Vs. VC Shukla (1998) 3 SCC 410, 425, 426 it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is incumbent upon the person relying upon these entries to prove that they were in accordance with facts. In other words the entr…

Oliria Foods and Beverages Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1531/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B(1)(ix)

…r strong cannot take the place of evidence. The following cases are quoted in support :- (i) Uma Charan Shaw & Brothers 37 ITR 271 (SC) (ii) CIT vs. Anupam Kapoor 299 ITR 179 (P&H) (iii) CIT vs. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal 26 OTR 736 (iv) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (v) State vs. Gulzari Lal Tondon 1979 AIR 1382 (SC) (vi J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra 1979 AIR 1537 (SC) From the discussion made above, it may kindly be seen that :- (1) All the creditors are assessed to income and they are borne on the register of the Income Tax Department, having Permanent Account Number. (2) In the case of every cre…

Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 750 /Rjt/ 2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Jamnagar Vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta Prop. Of B. J. Industries Tej Prakash Society, P. N. Marg Jamnagar 361001, Gujarat India स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpm8295H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 21.08.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act"). 1

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…f various persons only to avoid payments of tax on his own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (1) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 2…

Rohit Gandhi vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA/957/2018HC Delhi28 Mar 2025

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

Section 132Section 139Section 143(3)

…pport of the estimate of unaccounted income cannot, therefore, be sustained. 16. We also consider it apposite to refer to the oft quoted judgement of the Supreme Court in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal : (1954) 26 ITR 775 and take note of the following observations, which although made in a different context, do set out the principle that it is impermissible for the Income Tax Authorities to base their decision purely on guess work: “9…As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor General when he says that the Incom…

Kei Industries Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Royito, Ward 24(1) Vs. M/S Sun New Creations New Delhi & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent C.O. No. 59/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2017-18) M/S Sun New Creations Vs. Ito, Ward 24(1) & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi A-2/71, Rajouri Garden, West Delhi, New Delhi – 110027 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aacch4883P Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Vikas Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…surmises. It is settled legal position that in respect of income tax proceedings, although strict rules of Evidence Act do not apply, however, assessment proceedings cannot be made on the basis of imagination and suspicion. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). Although the AO is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in Court of Law but he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or material at all, which he did in the case of the appellant company. In this respect,…

Seth Badri Prasad Ummedi Devi Paropkari Trust, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1529/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH a
Section 12ASection 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…on to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment rendering the re- assessment proceedings all the more vulnerable. In this relation assessee places reliance on some Supreme Court judgements, namely, (1) Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, (2) Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 and (3) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288. 4. That the Indian Courts including the Apex Court have time and again held that action u/s.147 of the I.T. Act 1961 cannot be taken for reopening assessment if the information is wholly vague, indefinite, far-fetched and remote. The courts have als…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…g supporting documents and evidences and in both the bank. The appellant contented that the genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted, relying on mere surmises without any material to prove the same as held in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (SC). I find that the AO has overlooked the net worth of the lender companies and relied only on profit. It is seen that besides the loan granted to the appellant, these lender companies had also given loans to other bodies corporate as well and granting of loan to the appellant is not a solitary transaction. The appellant has furnished the financ…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ing documents and evidences and in both the bank. The assessee appellant contented that the genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted, relying on mere surmises without any material to prove the same as held in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (SC) where the ld AO has overlooked the net worth of the lender companies and relied only on profit. It is seen that besides the loan granted to the appellant, these lender companies had also given loans to other bodies corporate as well and granting of loan to the appellant is not a solitary transaction. The appellant has furnished the financials…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ing documents and evidences and in both the bank. The assessee appellant contented that the genuineness of the transactions cannot be doubted, relying on mere surmises without any material to prove the same as held in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 (SC) where the ld AO has overlooked the net worth of the lender companies and relied only on profit. It is seen that besides the loan granted to the appellant, these lender companies had also given loans to other bodies corporate as well and granting of loan to the appellant is not a solitary transaction. The appellant has furnished the financials…

Kailash Chand, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward, Behror

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 565/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Dinesh Badgujar, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234A

…cion: It is well settled that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of reality. Thus, the impugned additions have been made merely on suspicion, impugned addition deserves to be deleted here itself. Kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), wherein it is held as under: “Assessment—Validity—ITO is not barred 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, but in making the assessment under sub-s. (3) of s. 23 the ITO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without ref…

Shalini Jagwayan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 987/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-VH
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 69

…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. In the case of St. Wilfred Educa…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Numgambakkam vs. Jagannathan Sekat, Chennai

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

ITA 2220/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Mr. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…e case of the Appellant. 6.3.18 As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of As per the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Lids. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third found in third party premise. In order to properly…

Kiran Fine Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 648/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 cuke M/s Kiran Fine Jewellers Private DCIT, Vs. Limited, Central Circle-02, F-19, Gautam Marg, Vaishali Jaipur Nagar, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCK7512P vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA & Sh. R.…

Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 676/KOL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 5(3) 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Aaykar Bhavan, P-7, Mercantile Building, Block-B, Chowringhee Square, Vs. 3Rd Floor, No.10, Kolkata-700069, West Bengal Kolkata-700001, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacch1011P Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Ar Revenue By : Shri S Datta, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2025

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, ARFor Respondent: Shri S Datta, CIT DR
Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 68

…n, surmises and conjectures and not upon proper evaluation and appraisal of the evidences and documents filed before him. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion. In these facts and circumstances, there is no need to treat the receipt of share application money from five share applicants as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld Hilton Commodities Pvt. Ltd.; A…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennerasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1153/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…rged by the revenue. 4.8 Similarly, 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 MiIIs (26 ITR 775), corroborative evidence would be essential to support the evidence found in third-party premises. 4.9 In the light of all these facts, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that the loose sheets were merely dumb document. The AO could not arrive at any conclusion based solely on the said material that the assessee and her spouse had actually paid on-money fo…

DCIT, Central Circle 2(3), Chennai vs. Amutha Thennarasu, Namakkal

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 1152/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1152/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Smt. Amutha Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O., Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abypa-7011-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं. / Ita No.1153/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Dcit Shri Vavipalayam Selvaraju Thennarasu बनाम/ Central Circle-2(3) 2/352, Vavipalayam, Vs. Chennai. Kollaram P.O, Namakkal -637 201. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Abfpt-8530-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit) -Ld. Dr " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24-02-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT) -Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Swaroop (Advocate) - Ld. AR
Section 132Section 143

…rged by the revenue. 4.8 Similarly, 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 MiIIs (26 ITR 775), corroborative evidence would be essential to support the evidence found in third-party premises. 4.9 In the light of all these facts, it was held by Ld. CIT(A) that the loose sheets were merely dumb document. The AO could not arrive at any conclusion based solely on the said material that the assessee and her spouse had actually paid on-money fo…

Jagdish Kumar Arora, Bhawanimandi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- Kota, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1195/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…no addition can be the basis of suspicion, assumptions’ and presumption. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however 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 KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). And in the present case the ld. AO invoked 37 Jagdish Kumar Arora provision of sec. 115BBE merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

…ecome the basis for creating charge for levying tax as each transaction has to be independently inquired into. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the character of evidence. For this proposition assessee relies on Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.).”…