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

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…by Ld. AO is purely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and does not have sanction of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases as under – a. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) b. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) d. Umacharan Shaw& Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) e. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 15. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others [1998] 3 S…

Shri Sandeep Sharma, Aa5, Anita Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 1275/JPR/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Aug 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. K. C. Gupta (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ould act provided the material was disclosed and the assessee had an opportunity to render their explanation in that regard. Further, the Ld. A/R was made aware of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mill Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that right to cross examine is not absolute and that the requirement of law for valid assessment would be met if all the evidence collected which is to be used against the assessee 9 Shri Sandeep Sharma, Jaipur. while framing the assessment order is placed before Tie assessee and given opportunity to rebut the…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hindupur vs. M.K.Maruthi Ram, Anantapur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1450/HYD/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Jun 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyassessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Karanam Maruthiram Vs. Income Tax Officer, Mulakaledu, Kirikera, Ward-2, Hindupur Mandal, Hindupur – 515201. Anantapur District, Andhra Pradesh – 515211. Pan: Abipm 9315 R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02/03/2020 Date Of Pronouncement: 24/06/2020 Order Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am.:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sri Sunil Kumar Pandey, DR
Section 143(3)

…ept. against this I.T.A.T 's order. 5. The C.LT(A) had committed contempt of Court by not following the Hon'ble Supreme Court's Judgements in the cases of Raghubar Mandai Harihar Mandai Vs State of Bihar (8 S.T.C. 770) and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs C.LT (26 ITR 775,782) and Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court's judgement in the case of Dewan Hanuman Man Mohan Vs State of Andhra Pradesh (11 STC 473) . 6. The C.I.T(A) failed to note that the impugned Asst. Order does not contain clear indication of the materials on which the income is estimated, that It is made on mere guess work, conjecture or speculation which…

Nirmala Devi, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-03, Hisar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2731/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 May 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishinirmala Devi Vs Ito House No. 8, Green Park, Hisar Ward-03 Haryana Pin: 125001 Ayakar Bhawan, Hisar Pan: Aappd3170P Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…ppellant and not on iota of evidence was put on record nor third party was ever cross examined by AO or the appellant. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot be assessed as income. There must be something more than suspicion to be assessed an income. Supreme Court 26 ITR 775 Dhaneshwari Cotton mills.” 3. The assessee, Smt. Nirmala Devi filed her return of income for the assessment year 2009-10 at total income of Rs. 623010/- on 30.03.2010 with Income Tax Officer, Ward-3, Hisar. The return was processed U/s 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Subsequently the information was received through Assistant Director of Income T…

Shri Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2019[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020
For Appellant: Sh. M. L. Borad (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

…based on surmises and conjectures. It is submitted that Income tax Act 1961 as well as related laws never support the actions based on hypothetical grounds. In this regard the assessee rely on the following judgments: • Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 • Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 • Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 19. Without prejudice to above submissions and in the alternative, it was submitted that while making disallowance of expenses by adopting theory of “apportionment”, the AO has also included following expenses totalling to Rs.5,71,727/- which clearly and con…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 68

…icion to support the addition. Sheth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393. b. The rule of law on this subject has been well settled that estimate framed without giving the basis for their fixation is bad in law. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775. In the case of Brijbhusnan Lal Praduma Kumar v CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 the Apex Court held an estimate, must not be capricious but should have a reasonable nexus to the available material and the circumstances of the case. Same view has been taken in the case of State of Kerala vs. C. Velukutty [1996] 60 ITR 239 (SC). c. The principal has also b…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 930/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…the entire addition has been made by the ld AO based upon suspicion, surmises and conjectures and not upon proper evaluation and appraisal of the evidences and documents filed before him. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion. In these facts and circumstances, there is no need to treat the receipt of share application money from five share applicants as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly…

Nimbus (India) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 929/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Parmita M. Biswas, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…the entire addition has been made by the ld AO based upon suspicion, surmises and conjectures and not upon proper evaluation and appraisal of the evidences and documents filed before him. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion. In these facts and circumstances, there is no need to treat the receipt of share application money from five share applicants as unexplained u/s 68 of the Act. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld CITA in this regard. Accordingly…

ITO, Ward- 6(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Dsr Impex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2087/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2087/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Baij Nath Singh, JCITFor Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ry ingredients i.e. identity of share applicants, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of share applicants. We place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 (SC) wherein it has been held that no addition can be made without material and on mere suspicion." 8. The assessee rely of the case law, where in Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court Jatia Investment Co vs CIT [1994] 206 ITR 718 (Cal) had accepted the contention of the assessee and stated, In case there is no cash receipts, the question of cash cred…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 715/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 713/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

Smt. Aarti Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 712/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 707/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 706/CHANDI/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

Sh. Sanjay Singal, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

ITA 709/CHANDI/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. G.C. Srivastava, Special Counsel
Section 132Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 68Section 69C

…ved that no natural justice required that there should be kind of a formal cross examination which is a procedural justice and is governed by rule of evidence, reference was made to the following case laws: • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 26 ITR 775, 783 (SC) • Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT reported at 125 ITR 713 (SC) • Gunda Subbayya Vs. CIT reported at 7 ITR 21,28 (SC) • Moti lal Padampat Udyog Ltd. Vs. CIT reported at 160 Taxman 233 (Alld) • Kishanlal Agarwalla Vs. Collector of Land Customs (AIR 1967 Cal. 80) • Satellite Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1983 ELT 2177 Bom) • Kan…

ITO, Ward- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4282/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ward-6(1), B-108, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2853J Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)

…ting thus, the ld. CIT(A) held that additions are to be made on hard facts or on corroborative evidences and not on suspicions, presumptions and surmises. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judhement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775(SC), Omar Salay Mohd. Salt vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) where in it was held 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. As all six entities who paid money to assessee h…

ITO 2(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Grandiose Jewellery P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1413/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील िं./ Ita No.1413/Mum/2016 (ननर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years 2010-11) The Income Tax Officer M/S Grandiose Jewellery Pvt. Ward-2(1)(4), R.No.553, 5Th Floor, Ltd., 402-B, 4Th Floor, Glitz बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mall 99, Vithalwadi, Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-02 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aaagca5371D अपीलार्थी की ओर े/ Appellant By Shri Rahul Raman, Cit Dr : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े/ Respondent By : Shri Prakash Jotwani, Ar ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2020

For Respondent: Shri Prakash Jotwani, AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be something more than bare suspicion to support an assessment u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills ltd. v. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65 ' (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC). Also see: CIT v. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943) 11 ITR 462, 469 (Bom); Ram Datta Sita Ram of Basti, In re, (1947) 15 ITR 61, 85 (all.); United Pael Construction Co. v. CIT, (1966) 59 hR 424, 426 (MP); CIT v. R.Y. Durlabhji. (1955)80 Taxman 479 : (1955) 211 ITR 178, 189 (Raj.). 3.9. As regards, abjection against additional evidence filed u…

Partha Chatterjee, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle - 1, Hooghly

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1015/KOL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2009-10 Partha Chatterjee Acit, Circle-1, Hg बनाम C/O S.N.Ghosh & Aaykar Bhawan, G.T. / Associates, Advocates’ V/S. Road, Khadina More,P.O. “Seven Brotherrs’ Lodge” Chinsurah, P.S.Chinsurah, P.O.Buroshibtala, Dist. Hooghly, Pin-712101 P.S.Chinsurah, Dist.Hooghly, Pin-712105 [Pan No.Acepc 8818 Q] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Somnath Ghosh, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Altaf Husain, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 19-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 17-01-2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2018 Passed In Case No.360/Cit(A)-6/Kol/2014-15, Involving Proceedings 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File(S) Perused. 2. The Assessee’ Pleadings Raised In The Instant Case Seeks To Reverse Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Cost Of Construction Amounting To ₹27,88,995/- In Exercise Of Their Rectification Jurisdiction Vested U/S. 154 Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion To This Effect Reads As Under:-

Section 143(3)Section 154

…. - vs- MAHARAJADHIRAJA KAMESWAR SINGH OF DARBHANGA (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) that an assessment is not a leap in the dark. The AO is not entitled to make a guess without evidence. It is also settled in the case of DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. - VS- C.I. T. (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) that an assessment which is based on conjecture, suspicion and surmise is invalid and unsustainable in law. In the present context, it is submitted that the investment in the sum of Rs.27,88,995/- in cost of construction does not warrant application of provisions of s. 69 of the Act. It is reiterated that the appellant has duly appropriated t…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1456/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 1456/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S Earthline Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Tax, Circle-8(1), 2168, Gurudwara Road, Karol New Delhi Bagh, Delhi-110005 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabce4236G Assessee By : Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Fca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.12.2019

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

…ment assessment must have reasonable nexus to the material available". And it was held in the case of Brij Bhushan Lal P Kumar 1987 115 ITR 524 SC "that the estimate must be honest and fair". IV. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [26 ITR 775 (SC)] - "In making the assessment u/s.143, the Assessing Officer is 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." The Ld. AO has failed to appreciate that the business model of the appellant and its sis…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ot 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 an assessment U/s 143(3). Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd~ V. CIT, AIR 1955 SC 65: (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC) An Assessment based on mere presumption is unsustainable in law. Banshidar Onkarmal vs. CIT, (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori). Surrounding circumstances must be considered while scrutinizing document 82 ITR 540 Hon'ble Supreme Court- CIT vs. Durgaprasad Mure. 29. Per contra Ld. Department Representative (DR) vehemently argued supporting the orde…