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

Mkh Infrastructure, Kerala vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Mangalore

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 174/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Guru Kumar S., D.R
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) ITA Nos.414&415/Bang/2024 Emirates Hindustan Builders and Developers, Kasargod ITA Nos.167&168/Bang/2024 Tabesco Hindustan Infra Developers…

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…many surmise and conjectures and if the conclusion is the result of suspicion, which cannot take place of proof in this matter.” 5.20. Further, reliance was placed on the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 775)(SC), wherein held that “assessment made u/s 23(3) of the Act could not be merely a few guess work without making reference to any evidence or material on record. There ITA Nos.431 to 435/Bang/2024 M/s. Mukka Proteins Limited, Mangaluru Page 51 of 73 must be something more than bear suspicion to support the assessment. The estimate of gross rate…

DCIT (Central), Bhopal vs. Shailendra Sharma, Bhopal

In the result the appeals of the assessee for the Assessment

ITA 305/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 153A

…t have been incurred during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration and made the impugned addition. We find support from the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) that any suspicion howsoever strong it may be, cannot become a basis of any addition. We are of the considered opinion that no addition can be made in the total income of an assessee merely on the basis of uncorroborated, undated, unsigned seized loose papers, in absence of any other material or evidence to substantiate the contents of such l…

Saroj Luniwal, Jaipur vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 299/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

…case the revenue authorities failed to discharge their onus, rather they acted merely on surmises and conjunctures while making the additions. For this view, I draw strength from the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take placed of reality. Therefore, in my considered view, the assessment cannot be made on guesswork without any reference to any material on record. Withdrawal/ deposit of cash from his bank account are exclusive prerogative of the…

Income Tax Officer W 1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1166/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Vijayanagar vs. Ramachandra Setty and Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1165/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37…

Income Tax Officer Ward-1 Hassan, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty and Songs, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1164/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37…

Income Tax Officer, W-1, Hassan vs. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1163/BANG/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37…

M/S. S. Ramashandra Setty & Sons, Hassan vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Hassan

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1156/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 115BSection 132(4)Section 250Section 69B

…ptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: (i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) (ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page 67 of 104 (iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) (v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) (vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…1 MS. PRIYANKA SURANA VS ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, ‘’SMC” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 102/JP/2024 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ms. Priyanka Surana cuke The ITO Vs. 201, Sterling Apartment, B-6-B Ward 5 (1) Prithviraj Road, C-Scheme Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAZPS 1109 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh v…

M/S Ganesh Builders, Panchkula vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 452/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…(305 ITR 245) Del. HC and CIT vs Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further submitted that out of the 4 plots numbered 10, 11, 168 and 169 of Kashmiri lal which formed the base for framing assessment, only 3 plots were included in the list of 54 plots on which the rate of Rs. 7000 was…

M/S Luxmi Builders, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Chandigarh

In the result, the respective appeals and stay applications are disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 451/CHANDI/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR &
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 251Section 251(1)Section 271

…(305 ITR 245) Del. HC and CIT vs Girish Chaudhary (296 ITR 619) Del. HC. Further, for the proposition that presumption howsoever strong cannot take place of evidence, Ld. AR relied upon the following judgments namely, Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT (1954) (26 ITR 775) (SC), Umacharan Shaw and Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) and CIT vs. Shri Ram Narain Goel, (P&H HC) 224 ITR 180. 18.6 It was further submitted that out of the 4 plots numbered 10, 11, 168 and 169 of Kashmiri lal which formed the base for framing assessment, only 3 plots were included in the list of 54 plots on which the rate of Rs. 7000 was…

Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Central Circle -2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 762/KOL/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am]

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)

…ities ought to have called upon the manager to produce the documents and papers on the basis of which he made the statement and confronted the assessee with those documents and papers.” 30. In the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “the rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh where it was stated that while 7 Namokar Builders Pvt. Ltd., AY 2013-14 proceeding under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evid…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…e said creditor.” 9 (1956) 30 ITR 228 Lajwanti Sial vs. The finding that cash credits or (Nag.) CIT high denomination notes encased upon demonetization represent undisclosed income, would be rejected by the court if there is no evidence to support it. 10 (i) 26 ITR 775, (ii) (a) Dharkeshwari In these cases Hon’ble Supreme 37 ITR 151 and (iii) Cotton Mills Ltd vs. Court has set aside the 37 ITR 288 all the CIT (b) Omar Salay assessment on the ground that it three are Supreme Mohammed vs. CIT was based on bare suspicion Court Judgment conjectures and surmises. and (c) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT respective…

Kamal Dewan, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is partly allowed

ITA 135/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 69A

…t 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 principleskindly 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) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 4. It is submitted that assessee ha…

Lokesh Ghiya, Nagda vs. Income Tax Officer, Ujjain

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 504/IND/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanilokesh Ghiya Ito 27, Government Colony Nagda Ujjain Vs. M.P. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aoipg2695D Assessee By Shri Amit Choudhary Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 09.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.04.2024

Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

…, v.Commissioner of Income- tax [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC) Page 2 of 7 ITANo.504/Ind/2023 Lokesh Ghiya (ii) Triyogi Narayan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income- tax-X, Kolkata* [2015] 60 taxmann.com 351 (Calcutta) (iii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), (iv) State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC) (v) V.B. Gadkari Vs. ITO (1985) 59 STC 362, 364 (M.P.) vi) Shankar Khadsari Sugar Mills Vs. CIT 193 ITR 669 (Kar.) 1992 ( 3. On the other hand, Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee has not filed any return of income u/s 139 of the Act nor in response to notice issued by the AO u…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 248/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…de in the case of M/s SRS Mining. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla & Others (3 SCC 410), Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) and also on the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 775) in support of various submissions. 4.8 However, Ld. AO held that Shri Pichaikannu had admitted that certain loose sheets and the entries in the long size note book were in his handwriting, in his role as a freelance consultant. He had stated that on the date of search he was out of station and these materials were sent from his residence. During…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 247/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…de in the case of M/s SRS Mining. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla & Others (3 SCC 410), Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) and also on the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 775) in support of various submissions. 4.8 However, Ld. AO held that Shri Pichaikannu had admitted that certain loose sheets and the entries in the long size note book were in his handwriting, in his role as a freelance consultant. He had stated that on the date of search he was out of station and these materials were sent from his residence. During…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 246/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…de in the case of M/s SRS Mining. Reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI vs. VC Shukla & Others (3 SCC 410), Common Cause vs. UOI (77 Taxmann.com 245) and also on the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (26 ITR 775) in support of various submissions. 4.8 However, Ld. AO held that Shri Pichaikannu had admitted that certain loose sheets and the entries in the long size note book were in his handwriting, in his role as a freelance consultant. He had stated that on the date of search he was out of station and these materials were sent from his residence. During…

DCIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur vs. M/S R.P.Rai Estate Pvt Ltd, Patna

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 28/PAT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-1, Muzaffarpur M/S. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs 19, Goharua, Patliputra Colony, Patliputra, Patna- 800013. Pan: Aaccr 4972 P (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, Jcit, Dr Respondent By : Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.04.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Revenue For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.06.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeal), Patna [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra, JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Devesh Poddar, Advocate
Section 143(2)

…ditors, payment certificate, copy of 26AS were produced before the A.O. It has been further agreed that no defects were pointed out by the A.O. Reliance has been drawn towards the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (S.C) where in Apex Court has held that AO cannot make any addition on the account of his guess work without having any material evidence on record. The relevant extracts of the said judgment is reproduced as under: 4 M/s. R.P. Rai Estate Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2017-18 "that in making the assessment under sub-section 3 of section 23 of the Income Tax Act…