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 366,444 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

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…on improper 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. 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay ii) 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 26 ITR 775 (SC…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…on improper 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. 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay ii) 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 26 ITR 775 (SC…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4964/DEL/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…on improper 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. 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay ii) 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 26 ITR 775 (SC…

Saikat Ganguli, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2018AY 2012-13
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A ‘ BENCH, KOLKATA Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Accountant Member, and Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member A.Y 2012-13 Saikat Ganguli Vs. D.C.I.T, Cir-10(2), PAN: ADWPG0654K Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) Appearances by: Shri S.K. Soni, CA, ld.AR Shri Sallong Yaden,Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of hearing : 18-06-2018 Date of pronouncement : 12-09-2018 O R D E R Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, JM :- This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), 4, Kolkata dated 06- 06-2016 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2.…

Jagmohan Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 604/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी एम .बालागणेश, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

Section 133(6)Section 68

…dgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Uma Charan Shaw & Bros, Co, vs, CIT (37 ITR 271). It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: a) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Salt vs CIT b) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs CIT c) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT d) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT 10. Further, in the case of Raj Kumar Agarwal (ITA No. 1330/K/07), reliance was placed on Hon’ble Calcutta High Court's decision in the case of Cabro Industrial Holdings Ltd. (244 ITR 422) wherein it was…

Lars Medicare Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6837/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2011-12

Section 10Section 115J

…for the proposition is placed on Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. vs. CIT reported in 37 ITR 271. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills ltd. v CIT iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 3.7 Furthermore, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has upheld the disallowance on the ground that it is difficult to appreciate that when the appellant is manufacturing a product…

Moti Adhesives P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3133/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhuassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 292CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 MOTI ADHESIVES P. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD 17(2), C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADV., NEW DELHI F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN: AAACM9114E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER The Assessee has filed this Appeal against the Order dated 26.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:- 1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Trimurthi Developers, Navi Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 5052/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ce or material on record vide State of Orissa vs. Maharajah Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76ITR 690 (SC); Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal vs. State of Bihar (1957) 8 STC 770 (SC): R.B. J. Naidu vs. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag); Dturajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Simijmal Champalal vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 396 (Pat); Omar Salay Mohamed Sail vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC); International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J & K), An assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law vide Dhirajlal Girdharia…

Goodricke Group Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2015[2002-2003]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Mar 2018AY 2002-2003

Bench: "ी पी.एम .जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 10Section 33A

…rofits of such undertakings. These are not derived from industrial undertaking. Other supportive decisions on this account are: i) CIT Vs. Sterling Foods (SC) 237 ITR 579, ii) Fenner (India) Ltd. Vs. CIT (Mad) 239 ITR 480, iii) CIT Vs. Viswanathan & Co. (Mad) 26 ITR 737, iv) CIT Vs. J. B. Exports Ltd. (Del) 286 ITR 603, v) A.M. Moosa, Bharat Sea Foods Vs. CIT (Ker) 224 ITR 735. 12.3. Therefore, neither gain on exchange amounting to Rs.12,15,952/- nor on sale of DEPB licence of Rs.59,75,746/- can be stated to be income “derived from” the sale of tea grown and manufactured in India. The action of the AO in excludin…

Essa I Merchant, Mumbai vs. JCIT RG 17(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1592/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…an Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC). It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof : (a) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). (b) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 736 (SC). (c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). (d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 9.6 In light of the above facts, we hold that, appellant has duly established that services were rendered by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and, hence, is eligible for claim of deduction of Rs. 37.5 lakhs. 10.…

Ess Ismail Merchant, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 13(3), Mumbai

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3618/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Pawan Singhessa Ismail Merchant Jcit 13(3), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Mumbai-400020 Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit 17(1), Essa Ismail Merchant Aayakar Bhavan, (Prop. Of M/S Advance Mumbai-400020 Computers), 123, Ground Floor, Vs. Zakari Masjid Street, Masjid, Mumbai-400009. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Essa Ismail Merchant Jcit 17(1), (Prop. Of M/S Advance Aayakar Bhavan, Computers), Unit No.9, Yusuf Mumbai-400020 Building, Ground Floor, Junction Vs. Of M.G. Road & Veer Nariman Road, Flora Fountain, Fort, Mumbai-400001. Pan: Afspm6894H (Appellant) (Respondent) Ita No. 3618 & 4521/M/2016 & 1592 & 3426/M/17 Essa Ismail Merchant

For Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 254(1)

…an Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC). It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof : (a) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC). (b) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1951] 26 ITR 736 (SC). (c) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). (d) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). 9.6 In light of the above facts, we hold that, appellant has duly established that services were rendered by M/s. Aswad Steels & Alloys (P.) Ltd. and, hence, is eligible for claim of deduction of Rs. 37.5 lakhs. 10.…

DCIT, Cir-8(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 963/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]

Section 14ASection 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…strict interpretation has to be given and no income can be brought to tax unless the definite and concrete findings are brought about by the revenue. For this proposition of law he relied on the following case-law:- • Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 • CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 249 • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.2. On merits, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer was factually incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the assessee does not have sufficient availability of funds for redemption of RNCPS for th…

M/S. Microfirm Capital Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-8(1), Kolkata

In the result, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri Aby T. Varkey]

Section 14ASection 250Section 56(2)(viib)

…strict interpretation has to be given and no income can be brought to tax unless the definite and concrete findings are brought about by the revenue. For this proposition of law he relied on the following case-law:- • Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 737 • CIT vs. Daulatram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 249 • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT reported in 26 ITR 775 3.2. On merits, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer was factually incorrect in coming to the conclusion that the assessee does not have sufficient availability of funds for redemption of RNCPS for th…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result ground No. 1 of the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1433/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Oct 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Manish Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anshu Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ase the adhoc addition has been made purely on the basis of suspicion and it is settled position in law the suspicion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of evidence. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajll Girdharilal v/s CIT reported in 26 ITR 736 (SC) has held that mere existence of reason 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. The reliance is also being placed on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. Commissioner of…

Delicate Realtors Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3253/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

…(iv) of the Act would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Essentially, the Assessing Officer is required to be pragmatic and not pedantic.” 29. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 736 has observed as under :- “The question whether a Hindu undivided family is doing business in shares is a question of fact : but if the court of fact whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at the decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the inquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irre…

Pavitra Realcon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

ITA 3185/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Oct 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No. 3185/Del/2015 (A.Y .2011-12)

Section 132Section 234BSection 68

…(iv) of the Act would be inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Essentially, the Assessing Officer is required to be pragmatic and not pedantic.” 29. We find the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT reported in 26 ITR 736 has observed as under :- “The question whether a Hindu undivided family is doing business in shares is a question of fact : but if the court of fact whose decision on a question of fact is final, arrives at the decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the inquiry, or by considering material which is partly relevant and partly irre…

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central -2 vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/308/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…esh Jain, the Ld. AR of the appellant and the undersigned.” 22. The additions made by the AO were found by the CIT(A) to be based on surmises and suspicion. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). In each of the appeals, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. 23. It requires to be noted that on the issue of addition of undisclosed income on account of franchisee fee, even the AO did not make any such addition for AY 2000-01. It was the case of the Assessee that there was no incriminating material for any of the AYs other than the y…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Ferns N Petals

ITA/310/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…esh Jain, the Ld. AR of the appellant and the undersigned.” 22. The additions made by the AO were found by the CIT(A) to be based on surmises and suspicion. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). In each of the appeals, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. 23. It requires to be noted that on the issue of addition of undisclosed income on account of franchisee fee, even the AO did not make any such addition for AY 2000-01. It was the case of the Assessee that there was no incriminating material for any of the AYs other than the y…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central 2 New Delhi vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/S Fersn N Petals

ITA/307/2017HC Delhi25 May 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 132Section 153ASection 260A

…esh Jain, the Ld. AR of the appellant and the undersigned.” 22. The additions made by the AO were found by the CIT(A) to be based on surmises and suspicion. A reference was made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). In each of the appeals, the CIT(A) deleted the additions. 23. It requires to be noted that on the issue of addition of undisclosed income on account of franchisee fee, even the AO did not make any such addition for AY 2000-01. It was the case of the Assessee that there was no incriminating material for any of the AYs other than the y…

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

In the result Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 799/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…