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 367,154 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

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2748/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.3044/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2013-14 I.T.A No.3045/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2015-16 I.T.A No.3046/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2014-15 I.T.A No.3047/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 I.T.A No.3048/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2018-19 I.T.A No.3049/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2019-20 I.T.A No.3092/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 ACIT, Central Circle 7(1), vs Shrilekha Trading Private Limited Mumbai, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), 91, Maharshi 653, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai- M.K. Road, Mumbai-4…

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2747/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.3044/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2013-14 I.T.A No.3045/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2015-16 I.T.A No.3046/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2014-15 I.T.A No.3047/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 I.T.A No.3048/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2018-19 I.T.A No.3049/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2019-20 I.T.A No.3092/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 ACIT, Central Circle 7(1), vs Shrilekha Trading Private Limited Mumbai, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), 91, Maharshi 653, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai- M.K. Road, Mumbai-4…

Shrilekha Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2746/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampura (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 145Section 153ASection 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.3044/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2013-14 I.T.A No.3045/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2015-16 I.T.A No.3046/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2014-15 I.T.A No.3047/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2017-18 I.T.A No.3048/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2018-19 I.T.A No.3049/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2019-20 I.T.A No.3092/Mum/2025 - A.Y. 2016-17 ACIT, Central Circle 7(1), vs Shrilekha Trading Private Limited Mumbai, 1, Pearl Mansion (N), 91, Maharshi 653, 6th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Karve Road, Marine Lines, Mumbai- M.K. Road, Mumbai-4…

Amit Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2325/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

…ceedings against a person other than the searched person must be under section 153C of the Act. 6.4 The ld. AR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO reported in 131 ITR 597 and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills reported in 26 ITR 775 to stress that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is on the Revenue and cannot be discharged by mere suspicion. According to him, the Revenue has failed to bring any clinching evidence of cash payment. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that…

Chandulal Banthia, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2324/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ballusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153DSection 292CSection 69

…ceedings against a person other than the searched person must be under section 153C of the Act. 6.4 The ld. AR also referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.P. Varghese vs. ITO reported in 131 ITR 597 and Dhakeswari Cotton Mills reported in 26 ITR 775 to stress that the burden of proving understatement of consideration is on the Revenue and cannot be discharged by mere suspicion. According to him, the Revenue has failed to bring any clinching evidence of cash payment. 7. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that…

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1306/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…ity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee already took into consideration the contents of seized annexure. The a…

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1286/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…ity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee already took into consideration the contents of seized annexure. The a…

Manohar Infrastructure and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh vs. DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh

Appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1285/CHANDI/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1285/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1286/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S Manohar Infrastructure & Dcit Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle-1 बनाम/ Vs. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Chandigarh. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1306/Chandi/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit M/S Manohar Infrastructure & बनाम/ Central Circle-1 Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Chandigarh. Sco No 139-141 Sector 17-C Vs. Chandigarh "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaecm-8616-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Sarabjeet Singh (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09-07-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/10/2025

For Appellant: Shri Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sarabjeet Singh (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 131Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153A(1)(b)

…ity of cross- examination. The suspicion however strong could not take place the required proof as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT (37 ITR 271) as well as the decision in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. (26 ITR 775) wherein it was held that AO is not entitled to make a pure guess and make any assessment without reference to any evidence / material. Further, corroborative evidence is essential to support the evidences. While making a disclosure of Rs.240.51 Lacs for this year, the assessee already took into consideration the contents of seized annexure. The a…

Kailash Chand Meena, Alwar vs. ITO Ward2(3), Alwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…servation based on assumption, presumption and suspicion and his own guess work and it is the settled legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 17 Sh. Kailash Chand Meena, Alw…

Sant Lal Aggarwal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

ITA 2243/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessmentyear:2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. 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) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT ii) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT iii) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT iv) AIR 1977 SC 796 Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh 7 Sant Lal Aggarwal v. ACIT 12 In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted with respect since the appellant has made the cash deposi…

Brand India Real Estate Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

…AO must decide the issue before him on a proper appreciation of evidence adduced during the course of assessment proceedings and not to be swayed and carried away under some report. Hon'ble Apex Court has held in the case of Dakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT 26 ITR 775-“that one who hears must decide the case." 7. The reliance is also paced on the following judgements: - a) Signature Hotels Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO &Anr. [2011] 338ITR 51 (DHC) "15. The aforesaid reasons do not satisfy the requirements of section 147 of the Act. The reasons and the information referred to is extremely scanty and vague. There is no refer…

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ial, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 72 of 158 The estimate of the gross rate of profit on sales, both by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal, seems to be based on surmises, suspicions and conjectures. It is somewhat surprising that the Tribunal took from the representative of the department a statement of gross…

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

…ial, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the Court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. Such a finding is vitiated because of the use of inadmissible material iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT ITA. No.139/LKW/2022 Page 72 of 158 The estimate of the gross rate of profit on sales, both by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal, seems to be based on surmises, suspicions and conjectures. It is somewhat surprising that the Tribunal took from the representative of the department a statement of gross…

Mo. Shariph Kureshi, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-4 Sikar, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 366/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)

…ation’s could not rebut the same with the adverse evidence. He has proceeded only on suspicion. An allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…tion 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, when there is no inquires conducted to controvert the submission made by the assessee the same cannot be considered as evidence against the assessee. The apex court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 held that "a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take place of reality. Assessment cannot be made on guesswork without any reference to any material on record. " Accordingly, the ITAT after relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Anil Bala Goyal in ITA No.1533/Del/2021 held that it sees…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 644/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…tion 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, when there is no inquires conducted to controvert the submission made by the assessee the same cannot be considered as evidence against the assessee. The apex court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 held that "a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take place of reality. Assessment cannot be made on guesswork without any reference to any material on record. " Accordingly, the ITAT after relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Anil Bala Goyal in ITA No.1533/Del/2021 held that it sees…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 643/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…tion 2(g) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Thus, when there is no inquires conducted to controvert the submission made by the assessee the same cannot be considered as evidence against the assessee. The apex court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. 26 ITR 775 held that "a suspicion remains a suspicion unless the same is established and can never take place of reality. Assessment cannot be made on guesswork without any reference to any material on record. " Accordingly, the ITAT after relying on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in case of Anil Bala Goyal in ITA No.1533/Del/2021 held that it sees…

Sri Sainath Associates, Lucknow vs. Dy.CIT-6, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 649/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)

…ssessee are audited under the Income Tax Act, 1961 and there is no adverse observation from the auditors. The disallowance made is purely ad hoc which is not sustainable in view of the following judicial decisions: Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 775(SC)] + Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288(SC)] CIT vs. National Rayon Commercial Co. Ltd. [(1992) 193 ITR 744 (Bom 1TO vs. Super Chemicals Distributors [(2005) 1 SOT 102 (Del)] S.A. Builders vs. CIT [288 ITR 1 (SC)] Further the Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of JCIT vs. Haryana Steel & Alloys Ltd. (in 1.T.A No. 3735/DEL/99…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi vs. Artex Textile Private Limited, Delhi

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5005/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Dr. Kapil Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144

…n law. 11. It is trite that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of proof as held in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) has observed that powers given to the Revenue authority, howsoever, wide, do not entitle him to make the assessment on pure guess without reference to any evidence or material. The assessment cannot be framed only on bare suspicion. The assessment should rest on principles of law and one should avoid presumption of evasion in every matter. Th…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…observation based on assumption, presumption and suspicion and his own guess workand it is the settled legal position of law that suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar BuildwellPvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. Alternatively and without prejudice…