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 367,322 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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad vs. R P Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 26/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S.Godara

For Appellant: Shri Biswal Narahari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…on surmise. It is a fundamental rule of justice and legal position that there may be something more than suspicion, to support the finding, in the assessment order, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following cases a. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT (26 ITR 775) b. DheerajLalGindhanLal v CIT (26 ITR 736) c. Omar Salay Md. Sheikh v CIT (37 1TR 151) d. Lal Chand BhagatAmbica v CIT (37 ITR 288) e. Umacharan Shaw and Brothers v CIT (37 ITR 271) Relying on the above decisions it is submitted that the addition of Rs. 24,28,34,402/-, based on doubt or suspicion on other expenditure is not valid in law and the s…

Bharat Jha-HUF, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-37(1), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 6834/DEL/2019[2013+-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2022

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 148Section 250Section 68

…he AO is to discharge an impossible burden to assess the tax liabilities by direct evidence only and to establish the evasion beyond doubt as in criminal proceedings. 13 ITA 6834/Del/2019 Bharat Jha HUF Vs. ACIT • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) S.S. Gadgil v. Lal& Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) • CIT v. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 389 (Delhi HC) • DinshawDarabshawShroff v. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 172 (Bom.) • Hersh win ChadhaVs DCIT 135 TTJ 51 (ITAT Delhi) 5.3 DIRECT DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS/TRIBUNALS IN THE CASE 0F PENNY STOCK COMPANIES IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE • M.K. Rajeshwa…

Raghav Softech Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 20(4), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…nt even by private enquiry, But If he desires to use the materials so collected, the assessee must be informed of the materials and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it Similar view- was expressed in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). It is also held in the case of Narayan Chandra Baiaya v. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 (Cal) that natural justice requires that before charging person with financial liability he should be informed of the materials on which the charge was going to be imposed and given an opportunity to rebut the effect of the materials, if he can. It was observed in…

The ACIT Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Goyal Developers, Indore

ITA 52/IND/2021[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…f any particular year cannot be based on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on a legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of any unexplained expenditure can be made. 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 UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed b…

The ACIT Central-1, Indore vs. M/S Goyal Developers, Indore

ITA 51/IND/2021[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Indore17 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

…f any particular year cannot be based on mere suspicion or bare guess, but on a legitimate material from which a reasonable inference of any unexplained expenditure can be made. 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 UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed b…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 929/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 928/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 927/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 926/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Nimbus Projects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 925/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Bipin Agarwal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 924/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(Formerly Nimbus Multicommodity Brokers Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-2, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 923/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jan 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 925/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Ita No. 926/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Ita No. 927/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Ita No. 928/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Ita No. 929/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Nimbus Project Ltd., Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn0116H Ita No. 923/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Nimbus Multi Commodity Brokers Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd. (Formerly Nimbus Multi Commodity Central Circle-2, Brokers Ltd.), 1001-1006, Narain Noida Manzil, 23, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacn2195G Ita No. 924/Del/2021 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Bipin Agarwal, Vs Dcit, 1001-1006, Narain Manzil, 23, Central Circle-2, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aewpa2901C Assessee By : Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, Ca Revenue By : Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 12.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Rajiv Khandelwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Deepshikha Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…oss examination, it is noticed that all the documents were shown to the appellant. Therefore, no separate opportunity to further cross examine is required to be given to the appellant. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the well-known Dhakeswari Cotton Mills (26 ITR 775 at 782) case, ruled that the Evidence Act may have no application in tax assessment proceedings. However, the court also clarified later, in Chuharmal vs CIT (172ITR 250at 255 SC), that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking the principles of the Evidence Act in proceedings before them, they are not prevented from doing so. All that…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1-2, Ajmer vs. Shri Bhagchand Jain, Ajmer

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

ITA 1271/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jan 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 145Section 145(3)

…osed with submission. Further, an allegation remains a mere 12 ITA 1271/JP/2018 & CO 42/JP/2018_ ITO Vs Sh. Bhagchand Jain allegation unless proved. Suspicion can-not take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC). 6. Entire amount of the alleged suppressed sale of Rs. 20,00,000/-, even assuming if it is so (though not conceding), cannot be added in as much as it is not the allegation of the AO what to talk of proving the same that the corresponding amount of the purchases towards such alleged suppressed sale, was also unrecorded. In other words, the c…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 236/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1336/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 621/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…ompletely disregarded. 13. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions for the proposition that without granting a cross examination, statement of a person cannot be relied upon to make an addition in the case of an assessee- (i). Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd (26 ITR 775) (ii). Andaman Timber Industries Ltd (281 CTR 241) and (iii). CIT v H.R Mehta (ITA No. 58/2001) 14. Without prejudice, the Ld. AR submitted that from the perusal of the statement as extracted in the assessment order, it is clear that none of these people have made any statement about the transaction of the Assessee or transaction with the Assesse…