Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

26 ITR 736Supreme Court of India1954#474 most cited

What is Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT authority for?

Income tax additions cannot be made based on mere suspicion, surmises, or presumptions; the assessing officer must rely on concrete proof and material evidence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof.

196

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,421 Indian tax judgments — from 2008 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT · 26 ITR 736 · suspicion not proof · no addition on surmises · section 143(3) · section 153A · section 132(4) · evidence for assessment · onus of proof · incriminating material

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

buyback of sharesabatement of assessmentonus of proofsection 153a proceedingssection 158bdsection 158bbsection 269tthird party informationsection 269ssection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 271e

Judgments citing Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT

Smt. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1013/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Ms. Suchitra Kamblea.Y. 2005-06

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Nirupama Katra, CIT, D.R
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 69

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2005-06 Smt.Meeta Gutgutia vs. DCIT, Central Circle 10 Prop. M/s Ferns N Petals, ME1 New Delhi M Block Market, GK Part I New Delhi 110 048 PAN: AFDPG2744 B A.Y. 2005-06 ACIT, Central Circle 10 vs. Smt.Meeta Gutgutia New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rajesh Jain, C.A. Respondent by : Ms. Nirupama Katra, CIT, D.R. ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER These are Cross Appeals directed against the order of the L…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1951/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…wing 10 per cent. of such expenditure without material evidence on record was not justified." 3.8. Furthermore, reliance for the same can be placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 11. CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 111. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.9. In the backdrop of the above judgments, the assessee would like to submit that its case here stands clearly covered by the above mentioned decisions. 3.10. As such, it is being humbly prayed before Your Honours, that the…

M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Central Circle - XI, Kolkata

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee on grounds No

ITA 1950/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1950/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2004-2005) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1951/Kol/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2006-2007) M/S Eastern Sugar & Vs. Acit, Cc-Xi, Kolkata, Industries Ltd., C/O M/S Poddar Court Building, Salarpuria Jajodia & Co., 7, 18, Rabindra Sarani, C.R.Avenue, Kolkata- Kolkata-700001 700072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce 2944 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Pinaki Mukherji, Jcit, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Years 2004-2005 & 2006-07, Are Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Central-I, Kolkata, In Appeal No.434/Cc-Iv/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 05.08.2010 & Appeal No.433/Cc-Xi/Cit(A),C-I/08-09, Dated 11.08.2010, Respectively Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer M/S. Eastern Sugar & Industries Ltd. (Ao) Under Section 143 (3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Tulsiyan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pinaki Mukherji, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…wing 10 per cent. of such expenditure without material evidence on record was not justified." 3.8. Furthermore, reliance for the same can be placed on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India: 1. Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 11. CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349 111. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.9. In the backdrop of the above judgments, the assessee would like to submit that its case here stands clearly covered by the above mentioned decisions. 3.10. As such, it is being humbly prayed before Your Honours, that the…

ITO, Rohtak vs. M/S. Veekay Medicos, Rohtak

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 968/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh.G.D.Agarwal & Smt Diva Singh

Section 194HSection 40

…r, it is settled law that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicious and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271(SC) Uma Charan Shaw &Bros. Co. v.CIT and other decision 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay, 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. V CIT, 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT, 91 ITR 8 (SC) CIT v Calcutta Discount Company Ltd." Further, this issue is covered by the this office order for A.Y. 2008-09. In view of the above, the addition is deleted and this ground of appeal is al…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 5722/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…proper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court. iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay When a Court of fact acts on material, 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 iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

Shri Pradeep Singh, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 996/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. & ShFor Respondent: Sh. FR Meena, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(2)(e)Section 2(22)(e)Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

…proper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be set aside by this Court. iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay When a Court of fact acts on material, 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 iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

A.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol vs. Sri Bireswar Kar, Raiganj

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed while the C

ITA 1454/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…sactions. Basing upon the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in case of CIT Vs. P.K Noorjahan (1999) 237 ITR 570 and relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 159 ITR 78, CIT Vs. Doulatram Rawatmal-87 ITR 249 and several other cases, Gujrat High Court has decided in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Rohini Builders that in the absence of a unsatisfactory explanation, the unexplained cash credit may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year and that the legislative mandate is not in terms of the words “…

M/S. Iveco Spa, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is party allowed

ITA 5696/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiiveco Spa, Adit, Copia Corporate Suite, Circle-1(2), Plot No.9, Jasola District Vs. International Taxation, Centre, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabci2759L (Appellant) (Respondent) Iveco Spa, Adit, (Now Fiat Gestione Partecipazioni Circle-1(2), Spa), Vs. International Taxation, 301-304, Plot No.9, Copia Corporate New Delhi Suites, Jasola, Dist Center, New Delhi Pan:Aabci2759L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)

…13 decisions of various courts as under:- Sr. Particulars No. CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. reported in 163 Taxmann 482 1. (Del) i) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswai Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 2. ii) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT, Bombay iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT v) AIR 1977 SC 796 Krishnand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh vi) Air 1974 SC 171 Jayadayal Poddar Vs. mst Bibi hazra vii) 242 ITR 133 (ker CIT Vs. K. Mahim Udma Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. M/s. JC Bamford Excavators 3. Ltd. (ITA No. 540/Del/2011 da…

Iveco Spa, New Delhi vs. ADIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee for AY 2007-08 is party allowed

ITA 5447/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishiiveco Spa, Adit, Copia Corporate Suite, Circle-1(2), Plot No.9, Jasola District Vs. International Taxation, Centre, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabci2759L (Appellant) (Respondent) Iveco Spa, Adit, (Now Fiat Gestione Partecipazioni Circle-1(2), Spa), Vs. International Taxation, 301-304, Plot No.9, Copia Corporate New Delhi Suites, Jasola, Dist Center, New Delhi Pan:Aabci2759L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. CS Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Arora, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 271(1)

…13 decisions of various courts as under:- Sr. Particulars No. CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. reported in 163 Taxmann 482 1. (Del) i) 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) Dhakeswai Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 2. ii) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT iii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT, Bombay iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT v) AIR 1977 SC 796 Krishnand Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh vi) Air 1974 SC 171 Jayadayal Poddar Vs. mst Bibi hazra vii) 242 ITR 133 (ker CIT Vs. K. Mahim Udma Deputy Director of Income Tax Vs. M/s. JC Bamford Excavators 3. Ltd. (ITA No. 540/Del/2011 da…

Bechar G. Patel, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 22, Mumbai

Accordingly the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4745/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4745/M/13 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Shri. Bechar G. Patel Dy. Commissioner Of बनाम/ 10, Mithila Shopping Centre, Income Tax Cent. Cir.22 Vs. V.M.Road, Juhu Scheme, Room, No.465, Vile Parle (W), Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400049 Mumbai - 400020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakpp6645A

For Appellant: Shri Airiju JaikaranFor Respondent: Shri K.B.Desai
Section 132

…0 Taxman 29)(Del.), & Jagdish Duggal Vs. ACIT (24 DTR 174)(Chd.)(Trib). It is also argued that the assessment cannot be made on the basis of surmises and conjectures and on estimated basis and reliance placed upon law settled in Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT (26 ITR 736)(SC). It is also argued that without any incrementing material no addition of any kind can be made in view of the law settled in CIT Vs. Teletornics Dealing System (P) Ltd. (228 Taxman 194)(Bom). Learned Representative of department has strongly relied upon the finding of the learned CIT(A). After going through the careful thoughts the argument ad…

Smt. Meeta Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result the appeals filed by the Department for all the assessment years stand dismissed

ITA 2409/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2016AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Smt. Beena Pillaii.T.A .Nos. 2409 To 2413/Del/2012 (Assessment Years-2000-01 To 2004-05)

Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 153A

…ought on record which could support such presumption as made by the AO in her case. The presumption of the AO is based on mere suspicion and not on any evidence whatsoever. It has been held by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajlal Giridharilal v CIT 26 ITR 736(SC) that mere existence of reason for suspicion would not tantamount to evidence. Since the AO has made the impugned addition on mere suspicion and without any 15 I.T.A.No. 2409-2413/Del/2012 evidence, the same cannot be sustained and the same is hereby deleted. (Deleted addition of Rs.88,00,000/-).” 6.7 We find no infirmity in the factual findi…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri S.K. Sethi, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is jettisoned

ITA 1440/DEL/2010[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Shri L.N. Malik, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anima Bernwal Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Kasat Paper 8s Pulp Ltd., vs. ACIT 74 ITD 455 (Pune). 15.6 It is settled principle of law that no addition/disallowance can be made on suspicion, surmises and conjectures as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases. a) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT 26 ITR 736 b) Omar Salay Mohammed Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151 c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v CIT 26 ITR 775 d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 15.7 In the case of Acchyalal Shaw v. ITO (2009) 30 SOT 44 (Kol.) (URO), the Hon’ble ITAT observed as under: “Suspicion cannot replace evidential document. Simple argument or allegation of manipulation…

Commissioner of Income Tax Delhi vs. Sunaero Ltd

ITA - 562 / 2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…stion of law when facts proved or admitted, do not provide and do not support, the conclusions of fact. A finding of fact can be challenged on the ground that it is perverse. Way back in 1954, the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal versus CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) had observed: “….if the court of fact, whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at this decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or bases its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions, and partly on evidenc…

Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/562/2008HC Delhi01 Jun 2012
Section 260ASection 4Section 45Section 47

…stion of law when facts proved or admitted, do not provide and do not support, the conclusions of fact. A finding of fact can be challenged on the ground that it is perverse. Way back in 1954, the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal versus CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) had observed: “….if the court of fact, whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at this decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irrelevant, or bases its decision partly on conjectures, surmises and suspicions, and partly on evidenc…

CIT vs. Rishikesh Buildcon Pvt Ltd

The appeal is disposed of with no order as to costs

ITA/1719/2010HC Delhi21 Mar 2012

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 194CSection 194C(2)Section 260ASection 40

…of the aforesaid position, we find that the order of the Tribunal is perverse and this Court should interfere with the said order. On the question of perversity we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736, wherein it has held: “It is well established that when a court of fact acts on material, 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 an…

Central Govt.Emp. Consumer Coo vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Appeal is dismissed and pending applications

ITA/407/2007HC Delhi19 Sept 2008

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER

Section 35Section 40Section 63Section 8(1)

…mean whether the Income Tax Authority considered its existence so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the case to act upon the supposition that it exists. 27. The question for decision in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [(1954) 26 ITR 736] was whether a Hindu Undivided Family was carrying on business in shares and it was held that this was a question of fact but if the Appellate Tribunal decided the question by taking into consideration materials which are irrelevant to the enquiry or partly relevant and partly irrelevant or based its decision partly on conjectures then in s…