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.

How many judgments cite Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT?

1,061 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775), spanning 2007 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 132, Section 68, Section 153C, Section 153A, Section 132(4).

Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (26 ITR 775)

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…single piece of evidence for the same. In this regard, I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in plethora of cases, advised against the use of suspicion however strong, for the purpose of making addition as under:  Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Whether though ITO 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 on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…single piece of evidence for the same. In this regard, I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in plethora of cases, advised against the use of suspicion however strong, for the purpose of making addition as under:  Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Whether though ITO 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 on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 874/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…single piece of evidence for the same. In this regard, I find that the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in plethora of cases, advised against the use of suspicion however strong, for the purpose of making addition as under:  Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Whether though ITO 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 on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Ramasamy Natarajan, Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2641/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2641/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Shri Ramasamy Natarajan बनाम Central Circle-2 # 255, Ganapathy Nagar South, / Vs. Trichy. T.V. Kovil Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-8486-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2640/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit Shri Jayaraman Muthureddiar बनाम #14, Akila Gardens, 1St Street, Central Circle-2 Trichy. Ganapathy Nagar, T.V.Kovil / Vs. Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadhj-0819-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) & Ms. Varshha Sridhar (Ca)-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) & Ms. VarshhaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…nue to adduce proper evidence to corroborate the contents of the seized material for the purpose of establishing that the assessee was in fact in receipt of the payments as noted in the seized material. Similarly, in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third- party premises. From these judicial decisions, it could be culled out that Ld. AO was not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence / material. It follows that no addition could be made u…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy vs. Jayaraman Muthureddiar, Trichy

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 2640/CHNY/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2641/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Acit Shri Ramasamy Natarajan बनाम Central Circle-2 # 255, Ganapathy Nagar South, / Vs. Trichy. T.V. Kovil Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpn-8486-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2640/Chny/2024 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Acit Shri Jayaraman Muthureddiar बनाम #14, Akila Gardens, 1St Street, Central Circle-2 Trichy. Ganapathy Nagar, T.V.Kovil / Vs. Trichy-620005. "थायीलेखासं./ जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aadhj-0819-D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" कीओर से/ Revenue By : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (Cit)-Ld. Dr " थ" की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri Y. Sridhar (Fca) & Ms. Varshha Sridhar (Ca)-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02-01-2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22-01-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Y. Sridhar (FCA) & Ms. VarshhaFor Respondent: Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69

…nue to adduce proper evidence to corroborate the contents of the seized material for the purpose of establishing that the assessee was in fact in receipt of the payments as noted in the seized material. Similarly, in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775), it was held by Hon’ble Apex Court that corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidence found in third- party premises. From these judicial decisions, it could be culled out that Ld. AO was not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence / material. It follows that no addition could be made u…

Rajnandgaon Petrol Service, Rajnandgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-2(1), Bhilai, Durg

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 553/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.553/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajnandgaon Petrol Service Partner : Kulwant Singh Bhatia, Pendri, G.E. Road, Rajnandgaon (C.G.)-491 441 Pan: Aagfr7601E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: None (written submission)For Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Circle-2(1), Bhilai 7. The assessee in support of his contention that no disallowance can be made on presumptive or a estimation basis, had relied upon the following judicial pronouncements: (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii)Monarch Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 54 TTJ 405; (iii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Arthur Anderson & Co. 94 TTJ 736 (iv) Dwarka Prasad Agrawal Vs. ITO, 52 ITD 239 (v) CIT Vs. SSP (P) Ltd. 202 Taxman 386 (vi) Cardiac Care & Allied Health Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No.247/JP/2019 (vii) M/s. Sunia Finlea…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…dditions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC); (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) and (iii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). 13.6 The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee is entitled to receive cash after the demonetization as window period up to 31.12.2016 was allowed for deposit of cash. Even if it is held that assessee cannot receive cash against sales after demonetization, so far as the income tax law is concerned, the tax should be levied on real income of the…

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…dditions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC); (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) and (iii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). 13.6 The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee is entitled to receive cash after the demonetization as window period up to 31.12.2016 was allowed for deposit of cash. Even if it is held that assessee cannot receive cash against sales after demonetization, so far as the income tax law is concerned, the tax should be levied on real income of the…

M/S Shrigopal Rameshkumar Sales Pvt. Ltd, Nagpur vs. Assistant Comissioner Central Circle 1(3), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/NAG/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

…(A Registered Soci- ety) v. UOI [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245/[2017] 245 Taxman 214 (SC).” 17. It is trite law that presumption however strong cannot substitute for evidence. “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) and Chuharmal V. CIT (1998) 172 ITR 250 (SC) the Court held that although strict rules of the Evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, assessment cannot be made based on imagination and guesswork. The substantive and normal rule of evidence applies together with the principle of natural justice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the ca…