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 366,469 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

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 798/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 797/IND/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 796/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 795/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 794/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

The ACIT, (Central)-1, Indore vs. M/S. Prakash Ashphlting & Toll Highway Ltd., Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 793/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 269SSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 791/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 790/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 789/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 788/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 787/IND/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of UmacharanSaha& Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v / s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.2.9 Despite the request of the Appellant, during the course of Assessment proceeding and also during the course of Penalty proceedings, the department despite having several weapons in its armory, like giving of summon, survey, search and seizure, re- assessment, revision etc could not establish as to whether the alleged person from whom i…

ACIT Central-2 Bhopal, Bhopal vs. M/S M Ahuja Project ( India) P Ltd, Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 69/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(iii)

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 3.3.3 In view of the above discussion, the ld AO erred in totality in making addition on presumption and surmises and therefore, entire addition made by the AO on this account amounting to Rs. 4,36,45,968/- is deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” 10.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has deleted these additions by considering earlier order…

The ACIT, (Central)-II, Bhopal vs. M/S. M. Ahuja Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 68/IND/2022[20214-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(iii)

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 3.3.3 In view of the above discussion, the ld AO erred in totality in making addition on presumption and surmises and therefore, entire addition made by the AO on this account amounting to Rs. 4,36,45,968/- is deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” 10.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has deleted these additions by considering earlier order…

M/S. M. Ahuja Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. The ACIT, (Central)-II, Bhopal

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 49/IND/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(iii)

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 3.3.3 In view of the above discussion, the ld AO erred in totality in making addition on presumption and surmises and therefore, entire addition made by the AO on this account amounting to Rs. 4,36,45,968/- is deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” 10.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has deleted these additions by considering earlier order…

M/S. M. Ahuja Project (India) Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. The ACIT, (Central)-II, Bhopal

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 48/IND/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 36(1)(iii)

…and guess work. It has been held in the case of Umacharan Saha & Bros co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) that suspicion, however strong cannot take place of evidence. Similar views have been expressed by Apex court in the case of Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 3.3.3 In view of the above discussion, the ld AO erred in totality in making addition on presumption and surmises and therefore, entire addition made by the AO on this account amounting to Rs. 4,36,45,968/- is deleted. Therefore, appeal on this ground is allowed.” 10.1 Thus, the CIT(A) has deleted these additions by considering earlier order…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…he assessment under Section 23(3). The rule of law on this subject has been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Punjab (1944) 12 I.T.R. 393” Also refer DhirajlalGirdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 736 (SC), Omar Salary MohanmedSait v CIT (37 ITR 151) (SC), Lekchabnd Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT (37 ITR 285) (SC), CIT v Nandini C. (1989) 230 ITR 679, 689 (Cal). 17. On perusal of the assessment order it is revealed that the Ld. AO did not disturb the Net Profit as deduced/declared by the Books of Accounts as followed by Audited Financial statement but…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir - 1(3), Surat vs. Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 375/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…/Del/2008, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC). The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC), in Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj). The assessee also submitted that it is settled law that addition made under section 68 cannot be made if source-of-source is not explained. To support such view,…

Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(3), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 257/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…/Del/2008, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78(SC). The assessee also relied on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC), in Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC), Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in Jalan Timbers vs. CIT 223 ITR 11 (Gau) and Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj). The assessee also submitted that it is settled law that addition made under section 68 cannot be made if source-of-source is not explained. To support such view,…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J B Syntex Pvt. Ltd, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 140/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Oct 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.140/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Dcit, Vs. J. B. Syntex Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 1(1)(2), B-25, Guj. Eco. Textile Park, Surat N. H. No.8, Palsana, Surat – 394315. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcj9389D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Appellant By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 17/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…oceedings, the assessee also relied on the following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Gujarat in favour of the assessee: (i) CIT v Orissa Corporation 159 ITR 78(SC) (ii) Daulatram Rawatmall 87 ITR 349(SC) (iii) Dhirajlal Giridharilal v CIT 26 ITR 736(SC) (iv) Murlidhar Lahorimal v CIT 280 ITR 170 (Guj) (v) CIT v Pragati Co-Op. Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170(Guj) We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Ahmedabad, in the case of B. S. Corporation vs. ACIT (2001) 161 Taxman 29 wherein the Tribunal held that “if link is not established that the said amount belongs to the assessee or money is repaid to donor…

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…essing the income of the assessee has scrutinized those facts and made the order of assessment—Impugned notice issued to the assessee and further proceedings initiated under s. 147/148 therefore liable to be quashed. (iv) Dhirajlal Girdhari Lal Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Suspicion not tantamount to evidence: However, the mere existence of reasons for suspicion would not tantamount to evidence. But it should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work or on irrelevant or inadmissible material. (v) Bakul Bhai Raman Lal Patel vs. ITO 56 DTR 212(Guj) Reason to suspect cannot take place of reason to b…