ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi v. CIT

100 CTR 204High Court1991#8296 most cited
13

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2017 to 2024.

Issues it is cited on

section 115bbdsection 69dsection 59section 150section 80cnon-speaking ordersection 149(1)section 69bsection 149section 115bbreason to believereopening of assessment

Judgments citing ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi v. CIT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI WAMAN MAHADEORAO SARODE, NAGPUR

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

ITA 189/NAG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Abhay Y. Marathe
Section 147Section 148Section 250(4)Section 56(2)(vii)

…i.e. the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment. He cannot make additions merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. The same view was laid down in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204. 2. For the sake of brevity Sec. 69 if reproduced below as follow: "Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the hooks of account, if any, maintained by him far any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the in…

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

…e reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. (Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. ClT, held that - What is meant by saying that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the lncome-tax Act is that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act are not applicable, but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking…

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

…e reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. (Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. ClT, held that - What is meant by saying that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the lncome-tax Act is that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act are not applicable, but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking…

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

…e reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. (Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. ClT, held that - What is meant by saying that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the lncome-tax Act is that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act are not applicable, but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking…

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

…e reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences. (Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. ClT, held that - What is meant by saying that the Evidence Act does not apply to proceedings under the lncome-tax Act is that the rigor of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act are not applicable, but that does not mean that when the taxing authorities are desirous of invoking…

LATE. SHRI SATPAL SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR

ITA 289/JPR/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Sh. Ronak Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl.CIT)
Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69

…s clearly evident that the Ld. AO has erred both in facts and law thus it seems there was no intention to provide relief rather the motive was to increase litigation. I would to place on record the judgment made in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi V CIT (1991) 100 CTR 204 wherein it was laid down that ”Assessing Officer is expected to appreciate the reasonable explanation offered to him, the evidences produced before him about the nature and source of investment and he cannot make the addition merely on surmises, conjectures as well as without any supporting evidences.” 14. It is clearly evident from the facts sup…

THE ITO , SENDHWA vs. SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL , SENDHWA

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 334/IND/2018[11-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…held that:- Where income is assessed at G.? rate by rejecting the books of assessee under s. 145(1), proviso, no disallowance can be made separately under s. 40A(3). That Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs CIT as reported in 100 CTR 204 has held that [ refer preamble] "For recalling its finding, the Appellate Tribunal has not relied upon or referred to any document and addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment has been made merely on the basis of the sale transactions amounting to Rs. 4,24,396 estimated on the basis of documents seized in raid. Even the ITO and the CIT(A…

SHRI DWARKA PRASAD TAYAL ,SENDHWA vs. THE ITO , KHARGON

In the result appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 284/IND/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2011-12

Section 142(1)(ii)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80C

…held that:- Where income is assessed at G.? rate by rejecting the books of assessee under s. 145(1), proviso, no disallowance can be made separately under s. 40A(3). That Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs CIT as reported in 100 CTR 204 has held that [ refer preamble] "For recalling its finding, the Appellate Tribunal has not relied upon or referred to any document and addition of Rs. 50,000 as unexplained investment has been made merely on the basis of the sale transactions amounting to Rs. 4,24,396 estimated on the basis of documents seized in raid. Even the ITO and the CIT(A…

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3039/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High C…

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3038/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High C…

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3037/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High C…

MR. JAGAT SINGH,,DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 3036/DEL/2015[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Ms Suchitra Kambleita No. 3037/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2005-06) Ita No. 3039/Del/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08)

Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69

…reported in 98 ITR 280. CIT vs. Dr. S. Bharti 254 ITR 261 (Del) (b) CIT vs N. Swamy (Madras High Court) reported in 241 (c) ITR 363. Rajpal Singh Ram Avtar vs. ITO 39 TTJ544 (d) Ghanshyam Dass HasaNand 28 Taxman 219 (Mag) (e) (Mum) Ashok Kumar Rastogi vs. CIT 100 CTR 204 (All) (f) Neena Syal vs. ITO 70 ITD 62 (Chd) (g) ACIT vs. Lakshmi Printing Co. 46 TTJ 177 (Chd) (h) Jai Sharda Rice Mills vs. ITO 36 ITD 254 (Asr) (i) ITO vs. Har Preet Industries 59 ITD 346 (Chd) G) Ramnik Lai & Bros vs. ITO 81 Taxman 26 (All) (Mag) (k) 10. The Ld. AR further submitted that it has likewise been held by the Hon’ble Orissa High C…

PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-18 vs. SHRI OM PRAKASH CHANDNA

ITA/1164/2017HC Delhi19 Dec 2017

Bench: CASES PERTAINING TO SPL.DIVISION BENCHES

Section 158BSection 260Section 260A

…ld that the Tribunal was correct in doing so as there was no evidence found to that the assessee has made any such investment and no addition can be made of any such amount. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Ashok Rastogi reported in 100 CTR 204 wherein their Lordships in para 4 have held that no addition can be made unless the assessee is found to have made any investment. Reliance is also placed on the following judicial pronouncements: i) IT(SS)No.6/D/86 Dated 31.07.2002 Nihalsons Jewellers Vs. Dy.CIT. ii) IR (SS) No.87/Del/1997 dated 12.10.2000 M/s Kuwer Fibers (P) Ltd.…