Hastimal v. CIT

49 ITR 273High Court1963#2024 most cited

What is Hastimal v. CIT authority for?

An assessee's duty regarding the creditworthiness of a creditor is limited to the transactions between them, and they are not required to investigate the ultimate source of the creditor's funds. If the genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness are established, no addition under Section 68 is permissible.

57

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Hastimal v. CIT · Section 68 · source of source · creditworthiness of the creditor · genuineness of the transaction · share application money · addition u/s 68 · unexplained cash credit · onus on assessee · 49 ITR 273

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 11Section 11ASection 40(a)(ia)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234D

Issues it is cited on

source of sourcebogus share capitalsection 131(1)preponderance of probabilitycreditworthiness of the creditoraddition u/s 68section 2(14)share application moneyshort term capital gainsaddition under section 68rule 46agenuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing Hastimal v. CIT

ITO, EXEMPTION WARD, SALEM vs. ANBU EDUCATIONAL TRUST, KOMARAPALAYAM

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 332/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Chny/2019, Assessment Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Rajan, JCIT(Virtual)
Section 11Section 40Section 68

…on was established, no addition u/s 68 was permissible. To this effect the Ld.Counsel submitted that the conclusion of the Ld.CIT(A) / Ld.AO were flawed. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, upon decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hastimal as at 49 ITR 273. 5.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was fiercely contested that the issue of source of source is only material for assessment proceedings and not remand proceedings. It was said Page - 4 - of 12 that assessee’s arguments are non-maintainable since the present proceedings were remand proceedings. The Ld.DR acc…

ANBU EDUCATIONAL TRUST KOMARAPALAYAM,KOMARAPALAYAM vs. ITO, WARD-5, NAMAKKAL

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 186/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Chny/2019, Assessment Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: T.Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr.Saujanya Rajan, JCIT(Virtual)
Section 11Section 40Section 68

…on was established, no addition u/s 68 was permissible. To this effect the Ld.Counsel submitted that the conclusion of the Ld.CIT(A) / Ld.AO were flawed. Reliance was placed, inter-alia, upon decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Hastimal as at 49 ITR 273. 5.0 Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities. It was fiercely contested that the issue of source of source is only material for assessment proceedings and not remand proceedings. It was said Page - 4 - of 12 that assessee’s arguments are non-maintainable since the present proceedings were remand proceedings. The Ld.DR acc…

ACIT, NEW DELHI vs. FILATEX INDIA LIMITED, DELHI

ITA 5000/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

…in confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. It is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of creditors. Similar observation has also been given in the case of S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) and CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 IT 349 (SC). The learned first Page | 36 ITA Nos.4635, 5000, 2060, 4999, 4648, 3988, 2061, 1455, 2062 & 1456/Del/2024 & C.O.Nos.11, 32, 33, 34/Del/2025 & 89, 90 & 91/Del/2024 appellate authority has cited various decisions rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the hon'ble jurisdi…

ACIT, DELHI vs. GRAND ESTATE LLP, DELHI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4740/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…in confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. It is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of creditors. Similar observation has also been given in the case of S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) and CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 IT 349 (SC). The learned first appellate authority has cited various decisions rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the impugned order and finally has held that the assessee has substantiated the transaction regarding share application mo…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, MORENA vs. SHRI AGRASEN LOGISTICS, JOTAI ROAD, PORSA,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 108/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…in confined to the transactions which have taken place between the assessee and the creditor. It is not the business of the assessee to find out the source of money of creditors. Similar observation has also been given in the case of S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) and CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 IT 349 (SC). The learned first appellate authority has cited various decisions rendered by the hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the impugned order and finally has held that the assessee has substantiated the transaction regarding share application mo…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA vs. AMODINI VYAPAR PVT LTD, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1481/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Amodini Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Kalpanalaya, Avirampur, Po- 7Th Floor, Nadt Building, Aaykar Bhavan Poorva, 110 Shantipally, Budge Budge, Vs. Kolkata-700107 Kolkata-700137, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacca2332G Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 26.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 14ASection 68Section 68o

…s the grievance of revenue on non- compliance of summons. Admittedly, the summons under section 131 were duly served on the contractors but had remained un-responded. In this backdrop, the observations of Hon'ble Madras High Court in S. Hastimal v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 273 are worth noting wherein an impetus was given on the difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a Amodini Vyapar pvt. Ltd.; A.Y. 12-13 transaction after a decade. Similar view has been recently expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CITI Bank case (supra). 8.6 This apart, we are alive to the concern of the assessee that owing to closure…

ASHWINI KUMAR TANEJA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 46(3), NEW DELHI

Appeal is allowed

ITA 7391/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmash. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. Ito, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth Market New Delhi Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006 C/O M/S Rra Taxindia, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 Pan : Adbpt3461A (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI (DELHI BENCH ‘A’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SH. G.S.PANNU, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sh. Ashwini Kumar Taneja Vs. ITO, Ward-46(3), 586, Gandhi Cloth market New Delhi Chandni chowk, Delhi-110006 C/o M/s RRA TAXINDIA, D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi-110049 PAN : ADBPT3461A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv.; & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv.; Revenue by Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. DR; & Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 08.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement: 27.05.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: The appeal h…

UDAYAN GROVER,MUMBAI vs. NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE(NFAC), DELHI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T VARKEY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Udayan Grover v. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {ACIT – 26(3), BKC, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 PAN: ACLPG0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented by : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik Date of conclusion of Hearing : 23.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2024 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order of Learned…

M/S. POWER POINT,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 634/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev C Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Harishchandra Naik M., D.R
Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 37

…formation is provided, asking for the identity of the parties for the expenditures incurred before 15 years is nothing but putting the assessee on the rack, as held in the case of Hon'ble Madras High Court the case of S. Hastimal Vs Commissioner of Income Tax 49 ITR 273 judgement dated 18th December 1962 "it was held that after the lapse of 10 years, the assessee should not be placed on rack called upon to explain the origin and source of all investment and expenditures " Hence the Assessing Officer comment in this regard explained above. 9. At Para 6, the Assessing Officer state the claim of the assessee regardi…

ACIT (CENTRAL) , UJJAIN, UJJAIN vs. M/S GLOBUS HOUSING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 615/IND/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit (Central) M/S. Globus Housing Pvt. Ltd. 176, Zone-Ii, First Floor, M.P. Ujjain Vs. Nagar, Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aaecg 0623 J Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Hitesh Chimnani & Yash Kukreja, Ars Date Of Hearing 20.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 25.07.2023

Section 68

…over and there is no requirement on the part of the assesse-firm to further show whether amount invested has been properly taxed in the hands of the creditor. He has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 ITR 273 as well as the judgment of Hon’ble Guahati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 and submitted that once the assesse has discharged its onus to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the creditor by producing the loan creditor before the AO along with all the relevant details and documentary evidences and also prove…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, BHARUCH vs. SALYA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, BHARUCH

In the result, the ground No

ITA 438/SRT/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.438/Srt/2018 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Assistant Commissioner Of Salya India Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Circle-1, Ayan Apartment, Limda Vs Bharuch, 1St Floor, Hari Falia, At & P.O Kamboli, Kunj, Income Tax Office, Bharuch Pan No. Aalcs 7799 C Above Bank Of Baroda Building, Station Road, Bharuch अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

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

… Daulatram Rawatmal (87 ITR 349-SC),  Rohini Builders Vs CIT (256 ITR 360 Guj),  Gaurav Triyung Singh Vs CIT (243 ITR 531- Bom),  PCIT Vs Ami Industries India Private Limited (424 ITR 219- Bom),  Sarogi Credit Corporation (103 ITR 334-Pat),  H Hastimal (49 ITR 273 Mad),  S C Ghosal ( 106 ITR 344 Cal),  Bedi & Co Private Limited (144 ITR 352 Kar) and  DCIT Vs Mahalaxmi TMT Private Limited (190 ITD 582- Pune-Trib) 24 Salya India Pvt.Ltd. 14. We have considered the rival contention of both the parties and have gone through the orders of lower authorities carefully. We have also deliberated on various case…

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE -1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 172/CHNY/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…esents income either from sources already disclosed or from some undisclosed sources, that can be added only after stating the reason as to how explanation is unconvincing. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 has held that inability of the Department to verify the explanation offered is not a sufficient cause for rejection of the explanation. We are in agreement with the Department that it is not correct to say that the AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some other positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view especi…

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT ,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 171/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…esents income either from sources already disclosed or from some undisclosed sources, that can be added only after stating the reason as to how explanation is unconvincing. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 has held that inability of the Department to verify the explanation offered is not a sufficient cause for rejection of the explanation. We are in agreement with the Department that it is not correct to say that the AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some other positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view especi…

KATHIRAVAN SRINIVASAN ,PERAMBALUR vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, TIRUCHIRAPALLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 170/CHNY/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Dec 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकरअपील सं./Ita Nos.: 170 & 171/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 & आयकरअपील सं./Ita No.: 172/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shri Kathiravan Srinivasan, Vs The Dcit, No.274C, Thuraiyur Road, Circle-1, 2Nd Perambalur – 621 212. Main Building, Floor, New No.44, Old No.4, Williams Road, Cantonment, Pan: Ajspk 6687Q Trichirapalli-620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Darzakhum Songate, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: These Three Appeals By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Two Different Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai In Ita Nos.581 & 582/Chny/19-20 Dated 03.03.2022. The Assessments In Ita Nos.170 & 172/Chny/2022 Were Framed By The Jcit, Range 1, Trichy For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Orders Dated 31.03.2013 & 31.03.2014 Respectively. The Third Appeal In Ita No.171/Chny/2022 Is Against The Assessment Order Framed In Consequence To Revision Order Passed By Pcit U/S.263 Of The Act & Consequent Order Of The Ao For The Assessment Year 2010-11 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Act Dated 12.03.2015 Passed By The Dcit, Circle-1, Trichy.

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Darzakhum Songate, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

…esents income either from sources already disclosed or from some undisclosed sources, that can be added only after stating the reason as to how explanation is unconvincing. Similarly, the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of S. Hastimal vs. CIT, [1963] 49 ITR 273 has held that inability of the Department to verify the explanation offered is not a sufficient cause for rejection of the explanation. We are in agreement with the Department that it is not correct to say that the AO is not entitled to reject the explanation without some other positive evidence falsifying the assessee’s case. The true view especi…

RAJEEV SHETH ,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(2)(4), MUMBAI

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

ITA 2663/MUM/2018[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकरअपीलसं/ I.T.A. No.2663/Mum/2018 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2001-02) Mr. Rajeev Sheth बिधम/ Income Tax Officer- 37/A, Villa Ramona, Nepeansea 16(2) (4) Vs. Road, Mumbai-400036 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai

For Appellant: Shri .B.V JhaveriFor Respondent: Shri. T. Sankar, CIT DR

…AY. 2001-02 was not traceable) has handicapped the assessee from producing all the invoice copies (purchase) when the bench was asking for it; and drew our attention to the observation in such a context by the Madras High Court in case of S. Hastimal v. CIT (49 ITR 273) wherein the Hon. High Court observed as under: "It must be noted that the proceedings under section 34 were started in the year 1957 calling upon the assessee to explain a capital credit in his favour in the books of account for Hastimal Jayantilal and Co. made in the year 1947. The difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a transaction…

UNITED FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 9681/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry

For Appellant: Shri Shailendra Bardia AdvFor Respondent: Shri Prikshit Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

…address the grievance of revenue on non- compliance of summons. Admittedly, the summons under Section 131 were duly served on the contractors but had remained unresponded. In this backdrop, the observations of Hon’ble Madras High Court in S. Hastimal vs. CIT 49 ITR 273 are worth noting wherein an impetus was given on the difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a transaction after a decade. Similar view has been recently expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CITI Bank case (supra). 8.6 This apart, we are alive to the concern of the assessee that owing to closure of business and in the absence of an…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 4(1), RAIPUR vs. M/S SUPER IRON AND STEEL PVT LTD.,, RAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed and Cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 261/RPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Oct 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.261/Rpr/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) Acit-4(1), Raipur Vs M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) & Cross Objection No.13/Rpr/2017 (Arising Out Of Ita No.261/Rpr/2017) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2010-2011) M/S Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., Vs Acit-4(1), Raipur Pritpal Farm House, Vip Road, Raipur(C.G.) Pan No. : Aaics 2579 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N.Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 40Section 40A(2)(b)Section 68

…e documents. It was the submission of the assessee that as per settled position “Law does not require a man to do what he cannot possibly perform”. Reliance was placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of S. Hastimal Vs. CIT reported in 49 ITR 273, where in it was held that:- It must be noted that the proceedings under s. 34 were started in the year 1957 calling upon the assessee to explain a capital credit in his favour in the books of account for Hastimal Jayantilal and Co. made in the year 1947. The difficulty on the part of any assessee to explain a transaction which is a decade old has…

RAJAT ALLOYS (P) LTD.,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-21(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 9087/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2022AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…y (P)Ltd. [2104] 42 taxmann.com 377 (Delhi); 8. Orient Trading Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [49 ITR 723] (Bombay H.C.); 9. Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT (264 ITR 254) (Gauhati H.C); 10. CIT vs. Metachem Industries [245 ITR 160] (Madhya Pradesh H.C.); 11. S. Hastimal vs. CIT [49 ITR 273] (Madras). 12. Learned Departmental Representative strongly relied upon the observations of the Assessing Officer and learned Commissioner (Appeals). 13. I have considered rival submissions in the light of the decisions relied upon and perused the material available on record. 14. At the outset, I intend to adjudicate the legal issue raised b…

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. STHAPATYA SHILP CONSTRUCTION, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 907/AHD/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 907/Ahd/2019 With C.O.No.170/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 D.C.I.T., M/S. Sthapatya Shilp Construction, Central Circle-1(2), Vs. 2, Abhiraj Complex, Ahmedabad. 68-B, Swastic Society, Ahmedabad. Pan: Abffs2922P

For Appellant: Ms Nupur Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT,D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…on the following decisions: i) Orient Trading Company Ltd. v/s. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) ii) Pr. CIT vs. M/s. Dhanlaxmi Equipment Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 189/2016 iii} Aravali Trading Co. vs. ITO 8 DTR 199 (Raj.) viiij High Court of Madras In S. Hastimal (1963] 49 ITR 273 (Mad.) iv) Gujarat High Court in the ease of DCIT v. Rohini Builders 256 (TR 360 (Guj.) v] Gujarat High Court In the ease of CIT vs. RanchhodJivabhai Nakrmva (Tax Appeal No.50of2011) vi) CIT vs. Apex Therm Packaging (P.)Ltd.[20l4j 42 Taxman.com 473 [Gujarat-HC] Vii) CIT vs. Dharmadev Finance (P.)(Ltd.)[2014j 43 Taxman.Com 395(GUJ. HC) viii) CIT vs…

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-12(1), CHENNAI vs. M.SUMATHY, CHENNAI

The appeal stand dismissed in terms of our above order

ITA 414/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Shri P. Sajit Kumar (JCIT) – Ld. DRFor Respondent: Shri D. Anand (Advocate)-Ld. AR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…various judicial pronouncements including the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V/s Daulat Ram Rawatmull (87 ITR 349) & Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. V/s CIT (26 ITR 775), the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in CIT V/s S. Hastimal (49 ITR 273). Finally, the impugned additions were deleted by observing as under: - In view of the above discussion and the particular signal failure on the part of the AO to conduct even basic enquiries to validate or otherwise by evidence, even circumstantial or corroborative evidence relating to the aforesaid three prerequisites relating to Sec.68, the add…

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3