Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT

Dilipkumar Phoolchand Jain, Thane vs. ACIT Cen Cir 2, Thane

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey() & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2006-07 Dilip Kumar Phoolchand Jain Vs. Acit Cen Cir-2 Prop M.S. Globe Enterprises, 102/108 6Th Floor, Ashar It Park Jagannath Chawl, Phanswadi R.No. 16Z, Wagle Indl Estate, Bhiwandi, Dist: Thane Thane(W)- 400604 Thane - 421302 Pan No. Aarpj1996K

…the law relating to onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee. It is well established by a set of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT(1963) 50 ITR 1(SC), Govindarajulu Mudaliar(A) v. CIT(1958) 34 ITR 807(SC), CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad (1969) 72 ITR 194(SC), that the onus of proving the source of any money received by the assessee is upon him. In Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT(1963) 49 ITR 112(SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that if there is an entry in the account books of the assessee which shows the receipt of a sum, it is necessar…

Prashant Toraskar, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 25(1)

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5813/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11) Prashant Toraskar Asst. Cit-25(1), बनाम/ 101, 1St Floor, Sunflower Chs, Mumbai St. Francis Road, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 057 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaapt 5707 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Tarun Ghia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Vijay Kumar Soni सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 07.7.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 21.9.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-35, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 09.6.2014, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11 Vide Order Dated 07.3.2013. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By One Day. The Same Is Explained By Way Of An Affidavit Dated 11.4.2016 By The Appellant As Caused Under The Bona Fide Impression Of Having Been Filed In Time; He Being Engaged In Identifying A Counsel For Advice & Representation Before The Tribunal And, Thus, In Filing The Appeal, Resulting In It Being

…CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); 4) CIT vs. M. Ganapathi Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); 3 Prashant Toraskar vs. Asst. CIT 5) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif vs. CIT [1963] 50 ITR 1 (SC); and 6) A. Govindarjulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC). Aggrieved, the assessee is in second appeal. 4. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. Without doubt, the burden to prove the nature and source of the credit/deposit in his bank account is on the assessee, in the absence of which the same is liable to be deemed as his unexplained income for the relevant year. Why, t…

Vijay Jayantilal Choksi, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainvijay Jayantlal Choksi, 3 Satyam Building, 1St Floor, Juhutara Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai 400 049 Pan:Aajpc 7858B ... Appellant Vs.

…the view of the reliance is placed on the following decision. (a) Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT, 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad, 72 ITR 194(SC) (c) CIT vs. Ganapati Mudaliar, 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) CIT vs. M.Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT, 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumat Dayal Vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC) In view of the facts and circumstances and various court decisions on this issue, it is held that the appellant has failed to submit any documentary evidence to prove the genuineness of unsecured loans, therefore, the addition made by the A.O is upheld and…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

…rove the impugned credits in terms of section 68 of the Act, relying on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. Precision Finance (P) Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 465 (Cal); CIT vs. M. Ganapati Mudaliar [1964] 53 ITR 623 (SC); and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC) (refer Ground 3 of the Appeal), the assessee’s case, relying on CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj); Amitabh Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 385 (Jhark); Manoj Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB); ACIT vs. Lakhi Games Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2010 TIOL 272 (Trib)(Mum) was based p…

Udayraj N. Pal, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri Udayraj N. Pal Income Tax Officer-19(3)(4) 25B, New Kant Wadi 304, Piramal Chambers Vs. Perry Cross Road Parel, Mumbai 400012 Bandra (W), Mumbai 400050 Pan - Alqpp2215D Appellant Respondent

…n the view of the A.O., reliance is placed on the following decisions:- (a) Roshan Di Hat Vs. CIT 107 ITR 938 (SC) (b) CIT Vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad 72 ITR 194 (SC) (c) CIT Vs. M.Ganapathi Mudaliar 53 ITR 623 (SC) (d) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT 34 ITR 807 (SC) (e) CIT Vs. Durga Prasad More 72 ITR 807 (SC) (f) Sumati Dayal Vs. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) Keeping in view the above facts, & circumstances, it is held that the assessee has failed to submit documentary evidences and produce the parties before the A.O. for examination because there was non- compliance to the notice u/s 133(6), therefore, it is h…

Manisha Bipin Bhinsara, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4512/Mum/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Mrs. Manisha Bipin The Income Tax Officer- बनाम/ Bhinsara, Ward 25(2)(2), V. 501/A, Yogi Ratna, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp Mogaveera Bank, Mumbai – 400 051. Eksar Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai – 400 092. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Amlpb7464N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

…i v. CIT , 107 ITR 938(SC) c) Kale Khan Mohammad Hanif v. CIT , 50 ITR 1(SC) d) CIT v. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad , 72 ITR 194(SC) e) Sumati Dayal v. CIT , 80 Taxman 89(SC) f) CIT v. M Ganapathi Mudaliar , 53 ITR 623(SC) g) A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. CIT 34 ITR 807(SC) h) CIT v. Calcutta Agency Limited, 19 ITR 191(SC) i) CIT v. Transport Corporation of India Limited 256 ITR 701(AP HC) j) CIT v. Imperial Chemicals Industries India Private Limited 74 ITR 17 ITA 4512/Mum/2015 5 4.Aggrieved by the assessment orders dated 07.12.2011 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the A.O., the assessee filed first appeal befo…

Kantadevi Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

…reasonably. Being, of-course, where and to the extent required/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT)…

Santlal Gupta, Mumbai vs. ITO 14(2)(2)

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Aroraassessment Year:2007-08 Santlal Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aabpg6320Q Assessment Year:2007-08 Kantadevi Gupta, Ito-14(2)(2), 404, A Waghwadi, Mumbai Kalbadevi Mumbai ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Ahrpg7451P

…reasonably. Being, of-course, where and to the extent required/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT)…

DCIT Cen Cir 2, Mumbai vs. Faisal Abbas, Pune

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

…s such, there is no further burden on the Revenue to show that the income is from a particular source (refer: Roshan Di Hatti v. CIT [1977]107 ITR 938 (SC); CIT vs. Devi Prasad Vishwanath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC); A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar vs. CIT [1958] 34 ITR 807 (SC)). At the same time, however, the word used in section 68 is ‘may’, and not ‘shall’. As such, the assessment of income may not necessarily follow an unsatisfactory explanation with regard to a credit in accounts, and the Assessing Officer (A.O.) is obliged to consider, 4 Dy. CIT vs. Faisal Abbas for the purpose of its’ assessment as income, t…

Hitendra M Ghosh, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 19(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2007-08 Hitendra M. Ghosh, Ito, 28, Veena Beena, Gr. Fl. Ward-19(1)(3), बनाम/ Opp. Bandra Station, Mumbai Vs. Mumbai-400050 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Acmpg7670A

…me is from any other particular source. Where the assessee failed to prove satisfactorily the source and nature of such credit, the Revenue is free to make the addition. The principle laid down in Ganpati Mudaliar (1964) 53 ITR 623/A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar (34 ITR 807)(SC) and also CIT vs Durga Prasad More (72 ITR 807)(SC) are the landmark decisions. The ratio laid down therein are that if the explanation of the assessee is unsatisfactory, the amount can be treated as income of the assessee. The ratio laid down in Daulat Ram Rawatmal 87 ITR 349 (SC) further supports the case of the Revenue. In the case of a cas…

Manish C Jogani HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7344/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Manish C. Jogani, Huf Ito-16(2)(2), बनाम/ C/21, Shree Ganeshprasad Chs Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Sleater Road, Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aafhm 8076 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7345/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Sandeep C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aalhs 2461 Q (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7346/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Girish C. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadhg 0062 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7347/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बनाम/ Champaklal D. Jogani (Huf) Ito-16(2)(2), Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaahj 8938 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : (A.Y. 2008-09) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jayesh Dadia ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Smt. Bharati Singh सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2015 Date Of Hearing : 16.11.2015 Date Of Order आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is A Set Of Four Appeals By Different Assessees, Agitating The Dismissal Of Their Appeals Contesting Their Respective Assessments U/S. 143(3) R/W S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 07.2.2014 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Vide His Separate Orders Of Even Date (20.10.2014). The Issue/S Arising Being Common, The Appeals Were Posted For Hearing & Were Accordingly, Heard Together.

…reasonably. Being, of-course, where and to the extent required/relevant, duly informed of the applicable law/procedure. The law in the matter is again well settled, and toward which some binding decisions may be cited: A. Govinda Rajulu Mudaliar v. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC) Sreelekha Banerjee & Othrs. v. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 112 (SC) Kalekhan Mohammed Hanif v. CIT (1963) 50 ITR 1(SC) CIT v. Durga Prasad More (supra) CIT v. Biju Patnaik (1986) 160 ITR 674 (SC) Sumati Dayal vs. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801 (SC) CIT vs. P. Mohanakala &Others (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) Then, again, whether the Securities Transaction Tax (STT)…