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 367,296 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

Krishna Devi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 38(3), New Delhi

ITA 6356/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6356/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Krishna Devi, Vs Income Tax Officer, F-26/124, Sector-7, Rohini, Ward-38(3), New Delhi-110085 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abrpd0875E Assessee By : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.01.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…o presumption in law that the AO is to discharge an impossible burden to assess the tax liabilities by direct 29 Krishan Devi evidence only and to establish the evasion beyond doubt as in criminal proceedings. • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) • S.S. Gadgil vs. Lal & Co. (1964) 53 ITR 231 (SC) • CIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. (1978) 113 ITR 389 (Delhi HC) • Dinshaw Darabshaw Shroff vs. CIT (1943) 11 ITR 172 (Bom.) • Hersh win Chadha Vs. DCIT 135 TTJ 51 (ITAT Delhi) DIRECT DECISIONS OF HON'BLE COURTS/TRIBUNALS IN THE CASE OF PENNY STOCK COMPANIES • M.K. Rajeshwari vs. ITO in I…

DCIT, Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Signature Builders and Coloniser, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 219/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…ble to the facts of this case, the AO is required to bring some tangible and positive material on record to prove that assessee has paid amount not recorded in books of accounts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 Signature Coloniser/Builder 12 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). This is…

DCIT-Central-2, Bhopal vs. M/S Singnature Colonisers, Bhopal

In the result, both the departmental appeals i

ITA 218/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Abxfs 0002 J … Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central-Ii, Bhopal … Appellant Vs. M/S. Signature Builders & Colonisers, Bhopal Pan – Accfs 9498 Q … Respondent

Section 69

…ble to the facts of this case, the AO is required to bring some tangible and positive material on record to prove that assessee has paid amount not recorded in books of accounts. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 Signature Coloniser/Builder 12 ITA 218 and 219 of 2020 (SC) has held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). This is…

Nilesh Mahendra Kothari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 128/NAG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…therefore, there was no question of making balance payments to the seller. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 10 ITA 127 & 128/NAG/2021_ Nilesh Mahendra Kothari Vs DCIT 26 ITR 775, wherein it has been held that “even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is legitimately entitled to act on the material which may not be accepted as evidence, nevertheless such discretion does not entitle them t…

Nilesh Mahendra Kothari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Nagpur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 127/NAG/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…therefore, there was no question of making balance payments to the seller. In this regard, we draw strength from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. 10 ITA 127 & 128/NAG/2021_ Nilesh Mahendra Kothari Vs DCIT 26 ITR 775, wherein it has been held that “even though Income Tax Authorities including the Assessing Officer has unfettered discretion and not strictly bound by the rules and pleadings as well as materials on record and is legitimately entitled to act on the material which may not be accepted as evidence, nevertheless such discretion does not entitle them t…

Dy . Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2)`, Nagpur vs. M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Pvt.Ltd, Nagpur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 315/NAG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur20 Dec 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri O.P. Kant, Am Assessment Year: 2016-17 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Karan Kothari Jewellers Central Circle-2(2), Private Limited, Nagpur. 475, Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Itwari, Nagpur-440001. Pan No. Aacck 3221 C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri Hitesh P Shah (Ca) Date Of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Nagpur Dated 30/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2016-17 Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.33,18,94,091/ -Made By The Ao As Unexplained Investment In Closing Stock Without Going Into The Merit Of The Case. 2. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Ao Is Not Empowered To Making Addition U/S 69 Without Rejecting Books Of Account Ignoring The Merit Of The Case. 3. On The Fact & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Holding The Findings Of The Ao That The <Salvalue> Column In The Jilaba Software Represent

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA)For Respondent: Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM &amp; SHRI O.P. KANT, AM Assessment Year: 2016-17 A.C.I.T., Vs. M/s Karan Kothari Jewellers Central Circle-2(2), Private Limited, Nagpur. 475, Kothari Bhawan, Naik Lane, Itwari, Nagpur-440001. PAN No. AACCK 3221 C Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Pradeep Hedaoo (CIT-DR) Assessee by: Shri Hitesh P Shah (CA) Date of Hearing: 27/10/2021 Date of Pronouncement: 20/12/2021 ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This is the appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Nagpur dated 30/09/2019 for the A.Y. 2016-17 wh…

Kavita Pawan Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7931/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1139-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Heena Nilesh Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7930/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7930/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Heena Nilesh Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8463-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7928/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7929/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building / Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6316-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7927/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7927/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6311-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Beena Jitendra Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7926/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7926/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agfpk-4477-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Akshita Pankaj Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7925/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1141-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-2207-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikvat Through L/H Pankaj V Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7921/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…1 Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 &amp; 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) &amp; आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), 1915, 19th floor (…

Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7919/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8464-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775). The assessment should not be based merely on suspicion or guess work but on legitimate material from which reasonable inference of income could have been drawn. 4.8 The last aspect of the matter is that the additions have been made by Ld. AO invoking the provisions of Section 68. The addition u/s 68, in our considered opinion, is not sustainable…

DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradun vs. Swarnganga Construction P.Ltd, Bhilwara

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 186/DDN/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri V.P. Rao

For Appellant: Sh. N.S. Jangpangi, CIT/DRFor Respondent: Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate
Section 144Section 153CSection 249(3)Section 250(4)Section 271(1)(c)

…maintained by the appellant. 7 2. It is a settled law that addition cannot be made on mere allegations or guess work or conjuncture unless supported by the direct or circumstantial evidence. Hon&#x27;ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshawan Cotton Mills Vs.CIT 26 ITR 775 has observed and held “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 there the agreement en…

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 1 Kolkata vs. M/S Apeejay Shipping Ltd

In the result, these appeals are allowed and the substantial

ITA/26/2021HC Calcutta08 Dec 2021

Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE T. S. SIVAGNANAM,HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA

…a Properties Private Limited ITAT No. 105 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 wherein the Court affirmed the view taken by the First Appellate Authority holding that the assessing officer has not 37 (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) ITAT NO. 06 OF 2022 AND ETC. BATCH Page 46 of 150 doubted the genuineness of the documents placed on record by the assessee therein as in the case of the assessee before this Court. Reference was made to the decision of the High Court of Bombay in ITA No. 456 of 2007 in CIT Versus Mukesh Ratilal Morolia dated 07.09.2011 wherein the…

The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal vs. M/S Moenus Textile Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITANo

ITA 821/IND/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Manish Boradvirtual Hearing Assessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 68

…by the Ld AO is completely based on his imaginations, assumptions and presumptions and has been made ignoring the facts of the case and need to be deleted. For the above we have relied on the following pronouncements: 1.Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills vs. CIT( 1954)26 ITR 775, SC 2.Brijbhushan Lal Praddyuman Kumar vs. CIT (1978)115 ITR 524, SC Banshidhar Onkarmal vs. CIT (1953) 23 ITR353, HC 3. Orissa 4. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. JDS ApperalsPvt. Limited Source (2015) 273 CTR (Del) 1 : (2015) 113 DTR (Del) 137 : (2015) 370 ITR 454 (Del) I HIGH COURT OF DELHI&quot; 8.2 We further find that the ld. CIT(A) after conside…

M/S. Global Syntex, Surat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(3), Surat

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 571/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Virtual Court)

Section 145Section 254(1)

…aken as bench mark in subsequent years. The ld.AR for the assessee prayed for deleting the entire Gross Profit additions. To support all his submissions the ld AR for the assessee also relied on the following decisions;  Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT ( 26 ITR 775 SC),  Pandit Brothers Vs CIT (26 ITR 159 Punj),  Jhandumal Tarachand Rice Mills Vs CIT ( 73 ITR 192). 4. On the other hand, the ld.Sr.DR for the Revenue supported the order of Lower Authorities. The ld.Sr.DR further submits that during the year under consideration the AO in the show cause notice specifically mentioned that no day to day stock we…

Shri Sunil Mathur, Kota vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-4, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 660/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Nov 2021AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ed and can never take the place of reality and for making addition/ assessment of the alleged income, it is for the AO to have proved beyond all reasonable doubts which is completely missing as has been held in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (1975) 26 ITR 775 (SC). The AO completely ignored the settled law that u/s 68, 69 etc. only a discretion has been conferred upon the AO to be exercised judiciously but he is not always obliged to make the addition if the explanation is not found 10 Sh. Sunil Mathur, Kota Vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Kota satisfactory. Kindly refer CIT v/s P. K. Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570…