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.

How many judgments cite Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT?

196 judgments on BharatTax cite Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (26 ITR 736), spanning 2008 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153A, Section 132, Section 132(4), Section 142(1), Section 147.

Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (26 ITR 736)

Shri Chandubhai Parshottambhai Borad, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

In the result, ground No.2 of assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 143/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.143/Srt/2023 (Ay 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Chandubhai Parshottambhai Income Tax Officer, Borad, 162, 163, Akshardham Ward-3(3)(5), Surat, Vs Society, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Varachha Road, Gate, Surat-395001 Surat-395006 Pan No: Ajfpb 2959 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…liable to be deleted. To support his submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon following case law:  CIT vs. Daulatram Rawat Mal (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)  CIT vs. Orissa Corporation (P.) Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC)  Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC)  Murlidhar Lahorimal vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 512 (Guj)  CIT vs. Pragati Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (2005) 278 ITR 170 (Guj) 9. On the addition of agricultural income as “income from other sources”, the Ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer doubted the agricultural income on taking view that agricultural income in preceding asses…

Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)Pune, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 725/PUN/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ratan SamalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel

Section 132(4)Section 139(1)

…that no addition in the assessment can be made merely based on assumptions, suspicion, guess work and conjuncture or on irrelevant inadmissible material. Reliance can be placed in this regard on the following decisions: i) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 30. The Hon’ble Delhi Hi…

Clayton Charles Pinto, Mumbai vs. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 102/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleclayton Charles Pinto Mumbai. V. Int Tax Ward 3(3)(1) Mumbai. Air India Building, Mumbai- 400021 303 Palm Beach Apartments, 31 J P Road, Andheri West Mumbai- 400061

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…picion howsoever strong cannot take the character of evidence. ii. Suspicion is no basis for making additions: Reliance upon suspicion and surmises not supported by any evidence or partly inadmissible material is not proper [Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC)). Suspicion, how so ever strong, cannot take the place of evidence or legal proof [Roop Singh Nagir v. Punjab National Bank [2009] 2 SCC 570. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram's case (supra); Subramanian Swamy v. A. Raja [S.LP (Cr) No. 1688 of 2012 dtd. 24-8-2012 (SC)). As such some positive evidence is needed and subjective opinion would be inadequ…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 181/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…cture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R.Vijaya Renganathan [2010] 11 SCC 483: AIR 2010 SC 2685)" 15. Earlier in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) it was 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 evidence,…

DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur vs. M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 177/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…ture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [2010] 11 SCC 483: AIR 2010 SC 2685)" 15. Earlier in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) it was 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 evidence, the…

M/S. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 116/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…ture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R. Vijaya Renganathan [2010] 11 SCC 483: AIR 2010 SC 2685)" 15. Earlier in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) it was 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 evidence, the…

Shri Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed and that of the revenue is also stands dismissed

ITA 112/JPR/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) &

Section 132Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…cture and surmises, the judgment suffers from the additional infirmity of non- application of mind and thus, stands vitiated (Vide Bharatha Matha v. R.Vijaya Renganathan [2010] 11 SCC 483: AIR 2010 SC 2685)" 15. Earlier in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) it was 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 evidence,…

ACIT Central-2, Bhopal vs. Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal

ITA 87/IND/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyaniassessment Year: 2012-13 The Acit (Central)-2, Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, Bhopal, Mp-462011 H.No.E-2/134, Arera Colony, Vs. Bhopal, Mp-452016 Pan Adhpa8387N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Revenue : Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit(Dr) For Assessee : Shri S. S. Deshpande, Ca Shri Satyajeet Chatterjee, Ca

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Deshpande, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K. Mishra, CIT(DR)

Section 132(4)Section 153A

…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 Dhira Lal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 4.7.5 In view of the above discussion, material evidences on record and case laws cited, firstly, the loose papers or rather Shri Sanjeev Agrawal Page 21 of 48 say it as dumb document should be a speaking one having direct nexus with the assessee, which was not in the case of appellant. Secondly, the AO ought to have explained by which f…