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 367,194 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

Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust, Kolkata vs. ACIT, C.C.-3(1), Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee(s) are allowed as per the terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 2068/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 250

…Nos.: 982, 983, 984 & 2068/KOL/2018 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/s. Gateway Financial Services Ltd. M/s. Nishit Agarwal Beneficiary Trust Pinky Agarwal Pratik Agarwal Beneficiary Trust 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 proceeding under sub- section (3) of section 23, the Income-tax Officer, though not bound to rely on evidence produced by the assessee as he consi…

Giriraj Prasad Goyal, Tonk vs. ITO Tonk, Tonk

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

ITA 200/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur05 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 24

…on-business purposes, excess and element of personal user etc were there. 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), Uma Charan Shaw v/s CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC). All the disallowances deserve deletion on this submission alone. 3. Businessman is the best judge: It is settled that a businessman is the best judge to take care of its own interest & to take decisions and the AO is not supposed to intervene therein nor he can replace the assessee. Here, whatever dec…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…ssumptions, 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) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 30. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 a…

ACIT Circle-28(1), Delhi vs. Sam Overseas, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 169/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 Though the strict rule of evidence are not applicable to the income tax proceedings but at the same time it does not mean that no evidences are required Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) where the Hon'ble Court has held as under: "As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law but…

Sam Overseas, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1695/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannua N D Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Sr. Advocate
Section 195

…T.A. Nos. 1695/Del/2020 & 169/Del/2021 Though the strict rule of evidence are not applicable to the income tax proceedings but at the same time it does not mean that no evidences are required Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) where the Hon'ble Court has held as under: "As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income tax Officer is not fettered by technical rules of evidence and pleadings and that he is entitled to act on material which may not be accepted as evidence in a court of law but…

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6831/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…It was also submitted that contention of the AO has been out of his whims and conjunctures and has been made purely on the basis of suspicion, which is not permitted in the view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). Based on the above submissions, the appellant finally submitted that books of accounts of appellant have been wrongly, rejected and estimated additions are liable to be deleted.” 19. As may be noted the main allegation against the appellant was decline in GP Rate from 18.80% in the immediately preceding year to 6.5% for the current A.Y…

Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon vs. ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6829/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…It was also submitted that contention of the AO has been out of his whims and conjunctures and has been made purely on the basis of suspicion, which is not permitted in the view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). Based on the above submissions, the appellant finally submitted that books of accounts of appellant have been wrongly, rejected and estimated additions are liable to be deleted.” 19. As may be noted the main allegation against the appellant was decline in GP Rate from 18.80% in the immediately preceding year to 6.5% for the current A.Y…

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Ritu Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6042/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. T. M. Shiva Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Indu Bala Saini, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 24Section 250Section 250(6)Section 40

…It was also submitted that contention of the AO has been out of his whims and conjunctures and has been made purely on the basis of suspicion, which is not permitted in the view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs. CIT 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). Based on the above submissions, the appellant finally submitted that books of accounts of appellant have been wrongly, rejected and estimated additions are liable to be deleted.” 19. As may be noted the main allegation against the appellant was decline in GP Rate from 18.80% in the immediately preceding year to 6.5% for the current A.Y…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 381/CHNY/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…leted. The mere fact that the agreement was found from the possession of the assessee could not lead to any conclusion. While adjudicating the same, the Hon’ble Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) which held that AO was not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment order. Similar is the decision of same court in CIT vs. Akme Projects Ltd. (42 Taxmann.com 379) wherein it has - 25 – ITA NOS.379 TO 38…

Array Land Developers P. Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 380/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…leted. The mere fact that the agreement was found from the possession of the assessee could not lead to any conclusion. While adjudicating the same, the Hon’ble Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) which held that AO was not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment order. Similar is the decision of same court in CIT vs. Akme Projects Ltd. (42 Taxmann.com 379) wherein it has - 25 – ITA NOS.379 TO 38…

Array Land Developers Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle 2(2), Chennai

The appeals stand allowed

ITA 379/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman (C.A)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri M.Rajan (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143

…leted. The mere fact that the agreement was found from the possession of the assessee could not lead to any conclusion. While adjudicating the same, the Hon’ble Court relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) which held that AO was not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support the assessment order. Similar is the decision of same court in CIT vs. Akme Projects Ltd. (42 Taxmann.com 379) wherein it has - 25 – ITA NOS.379 TO 38…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…rial for the Assessing Officer to constitute evidence before rejecting a reasonable explanation furnished by the assessee [CIT v. Agile Properties (P) Ltd. [2014] 45 taxmann.com 512/225 Taxman 107 (Delhi) (Mag.)].  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)  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); Page No. | 13 CLAYTON CHARLES PINTO  Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrab…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘C’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 8/Kol/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18 ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata Vs Joydeb Kundu . PAN: ALKPK 8245 Q Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 16.05.2023 Date of Pronouncement 16.05.2023 For the Assessee Shri Siddarth Agarwal, Advocate For the Revenue Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-15, Kolkata dated 23.09.2020 for the A.Y. 2017-18. The revenue has raised the followin…

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…AO cannot make any addition merely on basis of suspicion, however strong it may be. The AO is not justified in presuming certain facts without having anything to corroborate. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, still assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed…

Shri Suresh Kumar Goyal, 501 Unique Sanghi Apartment Durgapura Jaipur-302018, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle-6, Jaipur, Circle-6

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

ITA 664/JPR/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…of the buyer party was enquired who denied any contact with the agents thus, the AO made the disallowance on mere 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), 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 re…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2665/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e in these cases where the AO has established by clinching evidence that assessee was receiving cash and disguising it as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and jus…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bptp Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2663/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Apr 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. C. M. Gargdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 2663/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Ita No. 2664/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Ita No. 2665/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Acit, Vs M/S Bptp Ltd., Central Circle-23, M-11, Middle Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccb2442A Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.04.2023

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT DR
Section 132(4)Section 132ASection 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 153A

…e in these cases where the AO has established by clinching evidence that assessee was receiving cash and disguising it as discount. The observations of the AO are in the nature of mere suspicion. It has been held in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), by the Apex Court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. The AO writes that basis and jus…

DCIT, Circle, Bhilwara vs. Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi, Bhilwara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 282/JODH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur13 Apr 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmithe Dcit Vs Shri Prahalad Rai Rathi Circle Prop: M/S.Kedar Mal Radhey Shyam, Bhiwlara Sadar Bazar, Gulabpura, Bhilwara (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adxpr 0949 R

Section 68Section 69C

…confirmations, bank statements in respect of the unsecured loans to the assessee” Accordingly, the assessee fully discharged onus cast upon it. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of reality as held in the case of Dhakeshwari cotton Mills (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). 4. Supporting case laws: 4.1 Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) held that once the existence of the creditors is proved and such persons own the credits which are found in the books of the assessee, the assessee's onus stand discharged and the latter is not further required to prove the sources from which the creditors could have a…

Rajeshwer Singh Yadav, Uttar Pradesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1910/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…have been confronted to the Assessee, therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examination is required to be given to the Assessee. The ld. Commissioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782), wherein it was held that the “Evidence Act”may have no application in tax assessment proceedings.” 6.2 The ld. Commissioner also held as under: “That since the seized Annexures D-1, D-6 and LP-4 were seized from the residential premises of Shri Ajay Kumar, during the search proceedings on dated 16.06.2017, therefore, the presumption abo…

Rajeshwer Yadav, Uttar Padesh vs. DCIT Central Circle, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 1909/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry & Dr. Brr Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Gaurav Jain, Ld. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. T. Kipgen, Ld. CIT/DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 69A

…have been confronted to the Assessee, therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examination is required to be given to the Assessee. The ld. Commissioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782), wherein it was held that the “Evidence Act”may have no application in tax assessment proceedings.” 6.2 The ld. Commissioner also held as under: “That since the seized Annexures D-1, D-6 and LP-4 were seized from the residential premises of Shri Ajay Kumar, during the search proceedings on dated 16.06.2017, therefore, the presumption abo…