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

The ACIT- 1(1), Bhopal vs. Shri Vinod Vaish, Bhopal

In the result these bunch of fourteen appeals of the assessee’s for Assessment Year 2009-10 are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 189/IND/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

…itten on the right side of the slip represent incomes earned by the assessee. It was conceded by the Departmental Representative that no such evidence have brought out on record”. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd V/s CIT 1954 261 ITR 775 held that “in making assessment u/s 23(3) of the Indian Income Tax Act, the ITO is not fractured by technical rules of evidence and fluctuations and he is entitled to act on material which may not accept an evidence in the court of law, but the IT is not entitled to make and power comes and making assessment without reference to any evidence or a…

The ITO, Ward-4(4), Surat vs. M/S. Valentine Cine Vision Limited, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2419/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat31 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Vikram Singh Yadavassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.P.K. Panda, Sr. DR
Section 43B

…d Bench held as under: “Undisputedly and as observed by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order the AO did not point out any defects in the books of account while ignoring the book results…The ratio of the judgments in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Raghubir Mandal Harihar Mandal v. State of Bihar [1957] 8 STC 770 (SC); State of Kerala v. C. Velukutty [1966] 60 ITR 239 (SC); State of Orissa v. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo [1970] 76 ITR 690 (SC); Brij Bhusan Lal Parduman 12 ITA 2419, CO 181, ITA 2438/Ahd/2015 Kumar v. CIT [1978] 115 ITR 524 (SC); Chouthmal Agarwalla v. CIT [1962] 46 IT…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…-271. Further reliance is placed upon: Krishnand v. State ofMadhya Pradesh:AIR 1977 SC 796 Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 CIT v. K Mahim Udma[2000] 158 CTR (Ker.) 100 : [2000] 242 ITR133(Ker.) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sail v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 : [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi) (Tri.) 281 21.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT [1954] 26ITR 775 at 782 observed: "As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General w…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…of evidence. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) ii) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151(SC) iii) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) iv) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 796 vi) Jayadayal Poddar vs. Mst Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC 171 vii) CIT vs. K. Mahim Udma 242 ITR 133 (Ker) 39. It is th…

Madhurawada Sree Sampath Educational Society, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 367/VIZ/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao& Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अऩीऱ सं./I.T.A.No.367/Viz/2018 (ननधधारण वषा/Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S Madhurawada Sree Sampath Vs. Income Tax Officer Educational Society Ward-1(1) D.No.26-15-149 Visakhapatnam Beside Andhra Bank Main Road Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaeam0753H] (अपीऱार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अऩीऱधथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Smt.Suman Malik, Dr सुनवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 घोषणध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29 .05.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per D.S. Sunder Singh: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)]-10, Hyderabad Vide

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N.Hari, ARFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR
Section 10

…estimated but should not be determined arbitrarily. This view is supported by Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 6 I.T.A. No.367/Viz/2018 M/s Madhurawada Sree Sampath Educational Society, Visakhapatnam (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC). The AO disallowed the entire expenditure which shows the action of the AO is arbitrary and unreasonable. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that since, the assessee failed to produce any evidence to support the expenses, the reasonable estimation of income would meet the ends of justice. On similar facts…

Shri Sandeep Sharma, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 May 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna (JCIT)
Section 143(1)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 while framing the assessment order is placed before Tie assessee and given opportunity to rebut the evidence. Here, it is also worth…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ded that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard, was placed on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…ded that another well-established principle is that no addition/disallowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard, was placed on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect…

ITO 1(1)(1)(5), Agra vs. Shanti Constructions, Agra

In the result, the appeal filed by revenue is dismissed

ITA 289/AGR/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenaincome Tax Officer, Ward,1(1)(5), Vs.. M/S Shanti Constructions, Ug-13, Aayakar Bhawan, Agra Shanti Madhuvan Plaza, Delhi Gate, Agra (Appellant) (Pan: Aaufs3185N) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep K. Sahgal, Adv. & Sh. Utsav Sahgal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Bajpai CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)

…tent as to put the appellant in possession of full particulars of the case he is expected to meet and to further give an ample opportunity to meet it. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 has held that “the Assessing Officer is free to make enquiries at the back of the assessee but, if the material/evidence collected is sought to be used against the assessee, thus reasonable opportunity for rebuttal must be provided. The AO’s failure to do so has resulted in miscarriage of justice and has thus violated the principles of natural jus…

Shri Gopal Soni, Mandsaur vs. Addll. CIT, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 714/IND/2017[02-03]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…aking inanity about the names noted in the diary and failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 713/IND/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2001-2002

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…aking inanity about the names noted in the diary and failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only…

Shri Gopal Krishna Soni, Mandsaur vs. Commissioner of Inco Me-Tax, Ratlam

In the result appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2000-01 is

ITA 712/IND/2017[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 May 2019AY 2000-01

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Borad

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 220(2)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234C

…aking inanity about the names noted in the diary and failed to examine while considering evidentiary value of the diary. No such alleged addition can be made on the basis of surmises, conjecture & surmises. Relied on :- (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton mills vs. CIT - 26 ITR 775 SC (2) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT - 37 ITR 271 SC (3) CBI vs. V. C. Shukla- 3 SCC 410 SC Your honours further kind attention is also drawn towards the facts that assessee was gunshot in Year 2004 and due to the said incident he was paralyzed from 2004 and confined to bed and his jewelry business also closed and is surviving on God mercy only…

Income Tax Officer-16(1)(5), Mumbai vs. M/S.Re N Raga Media Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6311/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer - 16(1)(5) V. M/S. Re N Raga Media Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 439, 4Th Floor Bungalow No. A/8, Svp Nagar Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Nr. Mhada Telephone Exchange, Mumbai-400 020 Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053

For Appellant: Shri Birju S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri D.G. Pansari
Section 131Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 68

…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 under section 143(3) vide; {Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT,(1954)26 ITR 775,782(SC); Raj Mohan Saha v. CIT, (1964)52 ITR 231 (Assam). Also see, CIT V. Gokaldas Hukumchand, (1943)11 ITR 462,469(Bom) … … 3.16 Recently, in the case of CIT vs. Gagandeep Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd [ INCOME TAX APPEAL N0.1613 OF 2014] it was held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court that, "Bogus share capital/premium; The proviso to s.68(which creates…

ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Middle Earth Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross

ITA 5753/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2011-12 Acit-13(3)(2), M/S Middle Earth Room No.229, 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Enterprises, Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40, C-2, Seksaria Vs. M. K. Road, Industrial Estate, Off Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaqfm8445I

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…that the assessed has made payment to parties and received money or money's worth back. Without proving that money has been received back, such addtion/disallowance is not permitted as held in the following cases:- (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. VS. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (iii) Laichand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [199] 37 ITR 288 (SC) 6.19. The assessing officer has referred to but not quoted the statements denying transactions with the appellant by the impugned parties. It is also not mentioned whether such statements were provided to the appellant. Th…

Income Tax Officer-19(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Umeshbhai R. Patel, Prop: M/S.Uma Gems, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4864/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Bleincome Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) V. Shri Umeshbhai R. Patel Room No. 201 Prop: M/S. Uma Gems Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 117/A, Pancharatna, Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 Pan: Acfpp 2969 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra
Section 132(4)Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer – 19(3)(5) v. Shri Umeshbhai R. Patel Room No. 201 Prop: M/s. Uma Gems Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road, 117/A, Pancharatna, Mumbai – 400 007 Opera House Mumbai – 400 004 PAN: ACFPP 2969 N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Department by : Shri Rajeev K. Gubgotra Date of Hearing : 27.02.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.04.2019 O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learne…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2376/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…as they have no legal sanctity/evidentiary value in the absence of opportunity of cross examination being provided to the assessee in spite of request. In this regard, the assessee relies on the following decisions: 1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT -SC - 26 ITR 775 (Annexure 6) 'Though ITO is not restrained under s. 23(3) by technical rules of evidence and pleading but he cannot make an assessment on pure guess-work without reference to any material or evidence and assessee must be given an opportunity to rebut any material considered by the IT authorities. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd – Del HC-288 ITR 34…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2375/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…as they have no legal sanctity/evidentiary value in the absence of opportunity of cross examination being provided to the assessee in spite of request. In this regard, the assessee relies on the following decisions: 1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT -SC - 26 ITR 775 (Annexure 6) 'Though ITO is not restrained under s. 23(3) by technical rules of evidence and pleading but he cannot make an assessment on pure guess-work without reference to any material or evidence and assessee must be given an opportunity to rebut any material considered by the IT authorities. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd – Del HC-288 ITR 34…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2374/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…as they have no legal sanctity/evidentiary value in the absence of opportunity of cross examination being provided to the assessee in spite of request. In this regard, the assessee relies on the following decisions: 1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT -SC - 26 ITR 775 (Annexure 6) 'Though ITO is not restrained under s. 23(3) by technical rules of evidence and pleading but he cannot make an assessment on pure guess-work without reference to any material or evidence and assessee must be given an opportunity to rebut any material considered by the IT authorities. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd – Del HC-288 ITR 34…

Laxmipat Dudheria, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2373/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Respondent: Shri K.R. Pradeep, Advocate &
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234DSection 68Section 69C

…as they have no legal sanctity/evidentiary value in the absence of opportunity of cross examination being provided to the assessee in spite of request. In this regard, the assessee relies on the following decisions: 1) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs CIT -SC - 26 ITR 775 (Annexure 6) 'Though ITO is not restrained under s. 23(3) by technical rules of evidence and pleading but he cannot make an assessment on pure guess-work without reference to any material or evidence and assessee must be given an opportunity to rebut any material considered by the IT authorities. 2) CIT vs SMC Share Brokers Ltd – Del HC-288 ITR 34…

Sri Ajay Kumar Agarwal, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ranchi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 244/RAN/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.244/Ran/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Chandan Das, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 50C

…ce of evidence as has been noted in the assessment order. I find that the disallowance is not excessive. The best judgment has to meet the twin tests of not being vindictive and not being capricious. As held in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) has ruled that “although ITO 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 ends; because it is equally clear that in making the assessment under section 23(3) he is not entitled to make a pure guess and m…