Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT

96 ITR 148High Court1974#5328 most cited

What is Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to an opportunity to explain undisclosed investments or income before it is included in their total income, as per principles of natural justice and specific provisions like Section 69.

22

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Malik Packaging v. CIT · TCN Menon v. ITO · 96 ITR 148 · section 69 · section 69A · section 115BBE · natural justice · audi alteram partem · opportunity to explain · undisclosed investment · total income

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 68Section 234BSection 145(3)Section 234ASection 234CSection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbdsection 23(3)section 115besection 66section 69dsection 59section 150onus of proofsection 80cfull and true disclosureaudi alteram partemsection 69b

Judgments citing Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT

KAILASH CHAND MEENA,ALWAR vs. ITO WARD2(3), ALWAR, ALWAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 101/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 69A

…cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 69A and 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). Thusit is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 1.6 In the case of Shreyas Builders &Anr. vs. M.d.Kodnani&ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527 : (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been held that A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that it neither discloses the material no…

BRAND INDIA REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 514/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013
For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Ranka, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Dharam Singh Meena, JCIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…atiala v Union of\nIndia (1973) 91 ITR 630 (P&H); CIT v Sham Lal (1981) 127 ITR 816 (P&H); Jai Prakash Singh\nv CIT (1978) 111 ITR 507 (Gau); Thomakutty (MO) v CIT (1958) 34 ITR 501 (Ker);\nKoyammankutty v ITO (1965) 58 ITR 871 (Ker); Menon (TCN) v ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148\n(Ker.).\nAs we understand and as appears from the assessment order that no\nproper independent\ninquiries were carried out by ld. AO to controvert the direct material/evidence brought on record\nby the assessee to prove the derivatives transaction are genuine. The entire finding/action which\nwere discussed in the assessment order on the basis of…

MAHENDRA SINGH RATNAWAT,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 69A

…t order that the learned AO has failed to do so,\nwhich is against the principals of natural justice and against the law refer -Sanghi\nBrothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs\nCIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). The assessee also relies\nupon the judgment of Hon'ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No.\n50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon'ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon'ble Judicial\nMember Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon'ble Bench held that “ the AO has not issued any\nshow cause notice before invoking the provision of Sec. 115BBE for ta…

SITARAM BADRI NARAIN MAWAWALE,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 412/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…how the learned AO can taxed the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). The submissions of the assessee are also drawing support from the Hon’ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No. 50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon’ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon’ble Bench held that “ the AO has not issued any show cause notice before invoking the provision of Se…

KATH BROTHERS,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 115BSection 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 77/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2019-20 cuke Kath Brothers ACIT, Vs. Dausa Road, VPO-Toonga Central Circle-03, Tehsil-Bassi, Jaipur Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AANFK3974G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by…

KIRAN FINE JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, JAIPUR

In the result ground no 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 648/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Sh. P. P. Meena, CIT-Th. V.H
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68Section 69A

…how the learned AO can taxed the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Limited Vs Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging Vs CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon Vs ITO 96 ITR 148 (Ker). 3(iv) The submissions of the assessee are also drawing support from the Hon’ble Coordinate Jodhpur ITAT Bench, Jodhpur ITA No. 50/Jodh/2021 consisting Hon’ble Vice President Shri N.K. Saini and Hon’ble Judicial Member Shri Sandeep Gosain. The Hon’ble Bench held that “ the AO has not issued any show cause notice before invoking the provision…

SHAMROCK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. NFAC, DELHI, MUMBAI

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4785/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainvs. Ito, Ward – 3(3)(1) Shamrock International Ltd Aayakar Bhavan, Mk 83-E, Hansraj Pragji Bldg, Road, Churchgate, Dr. E. Moses Road, Worlki, Mumbai – 400020. Mumbai – 400018. Pan/Gir No. Aaacs5756L (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69

…gly dismissed. Enclosed Copy of Order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ""A" Bench - Ahmedabad in the matter between The Income Tax Officer v/s. Rajeev Kumar N. Bodawala, Surat in ITA No. 1803/Ahd/2008, vide order dated 31-12-2010 as "Exhibit - L". 2. [1974] 96 ITR 148 (Kerala) High Court of kerala (T.C.N. Menon v/s. Income Tax Officer), Held that: It is clear from the provision of Section 69 that before the amount of the undisclosed investment is included in the total income of an assessee, he is entitled to an opportunity to explain it. The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act.…

SHAHNAJ,NEAR BHERUDANJI WELL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, INCOME TAX OFFICE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 712/JODH/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur01 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Dr Mitha Lal Meenasmt. Shanaj Vs The Ito W/O Shri Aslam Khan Ward-2, Churu, Near Bherudan Ji Well,Ward No. 22 Churu Sardarshahar,Churu – 331 403 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Fpmps 3570 D

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 50CSection 54F

…ortunity which is against the law of natural justice principle of the law. The opportunity has to be an effective opportunity and not a mere pretence. Our above submissions are well supported by the following judicial decisions: ; i. [TCN MemonVs. ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (Ker) ii. [State of U.P. VsShatrughanLal, JT 1998 (6) SC, 55, 56] ii, [Rajasthan Cereals Pvt Ltd Vs ACIT, Circle 15(1) New Delhi] 2019 ITL 2525 iv. [Shri Om Prakash Singh Vs ACIT, Circle-3, Mathura]2019 ITL 6104, 201 TTJ. 27 v. [Allumilite Architectural Pvt Ltd Vs ITO 1(1), Mumbai DCIT]2017 ITL 3139 vi. [SuvarnaArun Desai Vs ITO (CIB) Kolahpur]201…

PRIYANKA SURANA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 5(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…00/- and also cannot invoke the provisions of 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 1.3 Thus it is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 1.4 In the case of Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d. Kodnani & ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527 : (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been held that A perusal of the show-cause notice shows that it neither discloses the ma…

ARVIND KUMAR NEHRA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 7(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 32/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain,AdvFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 143Section 144Section 234A

…hus how the ld. AO can tax the income under u/s 115BBE. Hence, the entire addition is liable to be deleted in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 2.2 This sec. 115BBE is charging of tax at the higher rate and it cannot be applied directly without giving any show cause notice when the issues are disputed that whether the higher rate of taxes applicable or not on the alleged income or the nature of income falls u/s 68/69 and 115BBE. Enven in the present case the ld. AO has not applied t…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR vs. MUKESH KUMAR SONI, JAIPUR

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the cross

ITA 656/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Moving Towards The Facts Of The Case We Would Like To Mention

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani (FCA)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT)
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148A

…154); 20. CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for name sake. It should not be a paper opportunity. This was so held in 21. TCN Menon Vs ITO (1974) 96 ITR 148 (ker.) Opportunity must be given to assessee: These assessee will have to be given an opportunity of being heard and a right to question the correctness or the 24 ITA No. 656/JP/2023 & CO No. 06/JP/2023 ITO vs. Mukesh Kumar Soni relevancy of materials on the basis of which the ITO proposes to make the judgment assessment. 22. Gargi Din jwala Pra…

BALAJI JEWELLERS ,JAIPUR vs. ACIT CC -4, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…r 841 receipts and other additions and disallowances. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker).” 2.4 On the other hand the Ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) 2.5 We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. As the Assessing officer has made the addition of Rs. 90,00,000/- u/s 68 by invoking the provisions of 145(3) of the act. As the cash was found at the business premises of…

RUKMANI JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED,JAIPUR vs. DCIT CIR.-4 JAIPUR, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…o cannot invoke the provisions of Sec. 68 and 115BBE. Hence the entire additions are liable to be deleted. in full kindly refer Sanghi Brothers (Indore)Limited v/s Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v/s CIT 284 ITR 374 (All), T.C.N. Menon v/s ITO 96 ITR 148(Ker). 1.3 Thus it is the settled law that no addition can be made without issuing the show cause notice or without confronting to the assessee. 21 Rukmani Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT 1.4 In the case of Shreyas Builders & Anr. vs. M.d. Kodnani & ors.* (2000) 161 CTR 0527 : (2000) 242 ITR 0320 it has been held that A perusal of the show-cause no…

KAILASH CHAND YADAV,100, KALU BABA KI DHANI, SHEOSHINGHPUR, AKODA, PHULERA-303338 vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, WARD - 1(2), JAIPUR

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar(Adv.)&For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

…ause notice was required under a statutory rule, the same was held to be mandatory and the non-issuance of such notice was held to vitiate the best judgment assessment. (xv) Dhanalakshmi Pictures V. CIT [1983] 144 ITR 452 (Mad.) (xvi) T.C.N Menon v. ITO[1974] 96 ITR 148 (Ker.) Opportunity must be given to assessee - These assessee will have to be given an opportunity of being heard and a right to question the correctness or the relevancy of materials on the basis of which the ITO proposes to make the judgment assessment. 6. Addition cannot be made on the basis of material gathered at the back of the assessee- The…

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 123/CTK/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

…before the amount of the undisclosed investment is included in the total income of an assessee, he is entitled to get an opportunity to explain the same before the assessing officer proceeds for addition. ln the case T.C.N. Menon vs lncome-Tax Officer, 1973, 96 ITR 148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income is subject to tax is on…

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 122/CTK/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

…before the amount of the undisclosed investment is included in the total income of an assessee, he is entitled to get an opportunity to explain the same before the assessing officer proceeds for addition. ln the case T.C.N. Menon vs lncome-Tax Officer, 1973, 96 ITR 148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income is subject to tax is on…

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/CTK/2023[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

…before the amount of the undisclosed investment is included in the total income of an assessee, he is entitled to get an opportunity to explain the same before the assessing officer proceeds for addition. ln the case T.C.N. Menon vs lncome-Tax Officer, 1973, 96 ITR 148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income is subject to tax is on…

MR. TAPAN KUMAR BHUYAN,SALEPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), CUTTACK

In the result, appeals of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/CTK/2023[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack07 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialita Nos.120 To 123/Ctk/20 /Ctk/2023 Assessment Years : 2011-12 To 2014 12 To 2014-15 Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Mr Tapan Kumar Bhuyan, Vs. Income Ta Income Tax Officer, Ward- Chandradeipur, Chandradeipur, Salepur, Salepur, 1(1), Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Adopb 5206 C (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Samir Ranjan Dash Dash, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 07/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07/0 /08/2023 O R D E R These Are These Are Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of Of The The Ld Ld Cit(A) Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi All Dated10.01.2023 10.01.2023 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048586596(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022- 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 23/1048587277(1),Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/104858788161) 23/104858788161) & Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022 C/S/250/2022-23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011 23/1048588097(1) For The Assessment Years 2011- 12 To 2014-15, Respectively. 15, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Samir Ranjan DashFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty
Section 143(3)Section 80C

…before the amount of the undisclosed investment is included in the total income of an assessee, he is entitled to get an opportunity to explain the same before the assessing officer proceeds for addition. ln the case T.C.N. Menon vs lncome-Tax Officer, 1973, 96 ITR 148, Kerela High Court held that "The petitioner's case attracts the application of section 69 of the Act. The lncome-tax Officer was, therefore, bound to give an opportunity to the petitioner to explain about the nature and source of his investment before it was treated as his income". 4. The burden of proving that the income is subject to tax is on…

SMT. RUKSANA,JHALAWAR vs. ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR

ITA 192/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “B”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 192/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/h of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BJEPS 1293 M Appellant Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue…

M/S.PUTHUKAIVAYANINGAD VAIRAJATHAN EASWARANTE KSHETHRA COMMITTE ,KASARGODE vs. THE ITO, WD-2, KASARGODE

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

ITA 459/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin06 Oct 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George Mathan, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.T.M.Sreedharan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.B.Sajjive, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144

…in jail, the assessment has been done by serving notice on him. It was the submission that in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble ITA No.459/Coch/2019. 3 M/s.Puthukai V V E K Committee. Jurisdictional High Court in the case of T.C.N.Menon v. ITO reported in 96 ITR 148, wherein it has been held that any quasi judicial proceedings requires an opportunity of being heard before decision, the assessment is liable to be set aside. It was the further submission that even the estimate has been done in an absolute arbitrary manner without considering the interest outgoings or the expenses though the learned AO recognize…

Showing 1–20 of 22 · Page 1 of 2

Inspecting ACIT 122 CTR 19(MP), Malik Packaging v. CIT (96 ITR 148) — Cited in 22 Judgments | BharatTax