Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

265 ITR 25High Court2004#660 most cited

What is Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT authority for?

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is not automatically imposed upon an assessee's failure to contest a quantum addition or if two views are possible; the Assessing Officer must prove the charge of concealment or inaccurate particulars. Furthermore, an Assessing Officer can disallow a claim during assessment if it is patently false on examination of facts.

151

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT · penalty section 271(1)(c) · concealment of income · furnishing inaccurate particulars · penalty not automatic · burden of proof Assessing Officer · two views possible penalty · disallowance of false claim · assessment procedure · 265 ITR 25 · 130 Taxmann 553

Also reported as

130 Taxmann 553

Sections most often in play

Section 69ASection 143(3)Section 132Section 147Section 132(4)Section 69CSection 131(1A)Section 292C

Issues it is cited on

section 292csection 153a(1)furnishing inaccurate particulars of incomepenalty under section 271(1)(c)advance taxpenalty u/s 271(1)(c)concealment of incomefurnishing inaccurate particularssearch assessmentsection 132aprincipal commissioner of income-taxloose papers

Judgments citing Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 482/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…satisfy the requirement of 4th proviso to Sec.153A(1) which mandate that the escaped income should be represented in the form of an asset. This condition was not satisfied in the present case. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) held that loose slips recording some transactions in itself is not the finding of undisclosed asset. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Ld. AO was bad-in-law. In the present case, not even single evidence in the shape of agreement with the party, affidavit or cash book ledger was found by the search team which would corroborate the contents of the l…

M/S Credo Assets Pvt. Ltd., Rupnagar Punjab vs. DCIT/ACIT(Cen)-1 Chd, Chandigarh

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 484/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.487/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Singla Builders & Promoters Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaocs-6503-M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.482/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 3. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S Credo Assets Private Ltd. Dcit / Acit Central-1 बनाम/ Plot No 1265-C, Sector 82, Industrial Area C.R. Building, Sector 17 Vs. Rupnagar (Punjab) 140308 Chandigarh-160017 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcc-6400-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (Ca) & Smt. Shruti Khandelwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal (Cit) & Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel (Cit) – Ld. Drs (Virtual) Date Of Final Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal (CA) & Smt. ShrutiFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal (CIT) & Shri Rajat Kumar
Section 127Section 132Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 69ASection 69B

…satisfy the requirement of 4th proviso to Sec.153A(1) which mandate that the escaped income should be represented in the form of an asset. This condition was not satisfied in the present case. The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar (294 ITR 78) held that loose slips recording some transactions in itself is not the finding of undisclosed asset. Therefore, the jurisdiction of Ld. AO was bad-in-law. In the present case, not even single evidence in the shape of agreement with the party, affidavit or cash book ledger was found by the search team which would corroborate the contents of the l…

Bijaya Tah, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 405/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Dec 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 270(1)(c)Section 271(1)(c)

…igh Court itself shows that there was contradictory decisions and when two views are possible, penalty 271(1)(c) of the Act is not liable to be levied in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills, reported in 265 ITR 25(Calcutta). It was prayer that the penalty as levied may be cancelled. It was also the submission that the all details in support of the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.10(38) of the Act had been produced in the course of the assessment proceeding as also the appellate proceeding. 3. In reply, the Ld.Sr DR submitted that the quantum issues have a…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1170/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…lhi High Court CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 75-76 (Del.) (HC) 13 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam 77-78 Corporation 218 Taxman 136 (Guj.), 14 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s. CIT (2004) 79-83 265 ITR 25 (Cal.). 15 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Sh. Anil Sharma Versus The ITO, Ward-1 84-87 (3), Jaipur 2025 (3) TMI 212 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 1480/JPR/2024 dated 16/01/2025 16 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs 88-105 Addl CIT, Range -1 Kota ITA No 405/JP/2019 AY 2015-16 order dated 49 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Develop…

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur vs. M/S Gokul Kripa Colonizers & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the revenue stands dismissed, and the

ITA 1167/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal, CA &For Respondent: MS. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 271DSection 271E

…lhi High Court CIT Vs. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 75-76 (Del.) (HC) 13 Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Shyam 77-78 Corporation 218 Taxman 136 (Guj.), 14 Hon'ble Calcutta High Court Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s. CIT (2004) 79-83 265 ITR 25 (Cal.). 15 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Sh. Anil Sharma Versus The ITO, Ward-1 84-87 (3), Jaipur 2025 (3) TMI 212 - ITAT Jaipur ITA No. 1480/JPR/2024 dated 16/01/2025 16 Hon’ble ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Shri Ram Kishan Verma Vs 88-105 Addl CIT, Range -1 Kota ITA No 405/JP/2019 AY 2015-16 order dated 49 M/s Gokul Kripa Colonisers & Develop…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Ta, Jaipur vs. Shri Nath Corporation, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…alty for concealment of income only & only on the basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT & Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Jitendra Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 197/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (through V.C.) a
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…alty for concealment of income only & only on the basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT &Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provi…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Jaipur vs. Royal Jewellers, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 196/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Hemang Gargieya, Adv. &
Section 133ASection 271(1)(c)

…alty for concealment of income only & only on the basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is settled that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT & Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of concealment of income & furnishing of inaccurate particulars. 5. Penalty so imposed being totally contrary to the provi…

Dubbi Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Ltd, Dausa vs. ITO WD, Dausa

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1283/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR (V.C.)
Section 139Section 144Section 148Section 263Section 270ASection 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…distinct from the assessment proceedings and the two cannot be merged or taken as one. For a penalty proceeding the AO must bring more material to establish positive concealment. Reliance is placed on Anwar Ali 76 ITR 696 (SC), Durga Kamal Rice Mills vs. CIT 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT vs. Ishtiaq Hussain 232 ITR 673/148 CTR 367 (APP), T. Ashok Pai (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) and CIT &Anr. v. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory 359 ITR 565 (Karn). 5.2 The proceedings in respect of assessment and penalty are different and distinct notwithstanding the precondition that later has to be initiated in the course of former pro…

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

…the possession of loose sheets and not in physical possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article. Therefore the above additions u/s. 69A is not tenable. In this regard assessee wishes to rely on the following judgments: In P & H HC in 294 ITR 78, the assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if the assessee failed…

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…arathinam or whether reliance could be placed on the loose sheets recovered in the course of the raid are all question of fact. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.” b) CIT Vs Ravi Kumar P&H HC in 294 ITR 78, dated 16 July 2007 The assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if t…

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…arathinam or whether reliance could be placed on the loose sheets recovered in the course of the raid are all question of fact. We therefore find no infirmity in the order of the High Court. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.” b) CIT Vs Ravi Kumar P&H HC in 294 ITR 78, dated 16 July 2007 The assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewelry mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if t…

Sh. Laiq Ram S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward, Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 230/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2013-14
Section 69

…assessment proceedings are distinct from penalty proceedings, and where the assessee makes a claim completely unsupported by any fact, the AO is fully justified in rejecting the same and making the addition. He relied on Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [(2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal)] where the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held that where a claim is found to be patently false on examination of facts, the AO can disallow such claim even in assessment. 15. In rebuttal, the Ld. Senior Advocate submitted that the errors were inadvertent, and the only available recourse for the assessee was to rectify the same at the appellate…

Sh. Laiq Ram S/O Sh. Tulsi Ram, Shimla vs. ITO, Ward, Shimla

In the result, the present appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 229/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Vinay Sharma, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 69

…assessment proceedings are distinct from penalty proceedings, and where the assessee makes a claim completely unsupported by any fact, the AO is fully justified in rejecting the same and making the addition. He relied on Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT [(2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal)] where the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that where a claim is found to be patently false on examination of facts, the AO can disallow such claim even in assessment. 15. In rebuttal, the Ld. Senior Advocate submitted that the errors were inadvertent, and the only available recourse for the assessee was to rectify the same at the appellate…

Pradeep Garg, Ajmer vs. ITO 2(1) Ajmer, Ajmer

ITA 397/JPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 40A(3)Section 64(1)(iv)

…t of income only & only on the basis of findings recorded by the AO in the assessment order. It is a settled principle of law that assessment and penalty proceedings are separate and distinct from each other. Kindly refer Durga Kamal Rice Mills v/s CIT (2004) 265 ITR 25 (Cal.), CIT & Anr. v/s Anwar Ali (1970) 76 ITR 696 (SC), CIT v/s Ishtiaq Hussain (1998) 232 ITR 673 (All). The AO after reproducing the relevant portion of CIT(A) order for quantum and discussing the provisions u/s 271(1)(c), merely alleged but failed to bring any material whatsoever by making independent inquires to support the finding of conceal…

Palanisamy Devi, Erode vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Erode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 42/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr. P.M.Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…, the penalty is not automatic. The charge against the assessee must be proved by the AO in the penalty order. For such a proposition, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Durga Kamal Rice Mills v. CIT reported in [2004] 265 ITR 25/[2003] 130 Taxman 553 (Cal.) And also the decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Norton Electronics Systems (P.) Ltd., reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 280 (Allahabad-HC), wherein their lordships held that when the addition is made on the estimate basis, no penalty is sustainable. Since in the present case also, es…

Kolsa Khadan Kamgar Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sillewada Project, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(4), Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.11 and 12/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19 and 2019–20) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Unique Realities Builders & Developers 4, Golden Palace Complex ……………. Respondent WHC Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAPFM1863Q Assessee by : Smt. Veena Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 11/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed agai…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.11 and 12/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19 and 2019–20) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Unique Realities Builders & Developers 4, Golden Palace Complex ……………. Respondent WHC Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAPFM1863Q Assessee by : Smt. Veena Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 11/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed agai…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Nagpur vs. Unique Realities Builders & Developers, Nagpur

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 11/NAG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.11 and 12/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2018–19 and 2019–20) Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Appellant Circle–2(1), Nagpur v/s Unique Realities Builders & Developers 4, Golden Palace Complex ……………. Respondent WHC Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur 440 010 PAN – AAPFM1863Q Assessee by : Smt. Veena Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 11/02/2025 Date of Order – 25/02/2025 O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed agai…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circel-2(1), Nagpur vs. M/S. Metrocity Homes, Nagpur

Appeals are allowed

ITA 165/NAG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur21 Jan 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Suren Duragkar a/w Ms. Hemmani DuragkarFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…o be in possession of money, bullion, jewellery, etc. not recorded in the books of accounts of the assessee. [DCIT Vs M/S. Karthik Construction Co. (ITAT Mumbai)]. The Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78, the assessee was found to be in possession of loose slips and not any valuable article or things. Neither the possession nor the ownership of any jewellery mentioned in the slips was proved. Therefore, the Tribunal had rightly held that the provisions of section 69A of the Act were not applicable. The Tribunal also held that if the assessee faile…