J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar

94 ITR 616High Court1974#1972 most cited

What is J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar authority for?

An assessee found to be the owner of bullion, etc., must explain its source. The Income Tax Officer must find the assessee to be the owner, not merely in possession.

58

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar · 94 ITR 616 · Section 69A · unexplained money · ownership · possession · onus of proof · Income Tax Officer finding · bullion

Sections most often in play

Section 5(2)Section 9 Section 6 Section 147 Section 5 Section 149(1)(c)Section 234A Section 234B

Issues it is cited on

section 110 section 2(7)undisclosed foreign income and assets place of effective management section 149(1)(c)section 56(2)(vii)(c)section 6(1)survey under section 133a section 56(1)panchnama section 9(1)(i)section 250(4)

Judgments citing J.S. Parkar v. V.B. Palekar

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 945/JPR/2015[211-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Kusum Devi Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 944/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 935/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 934/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr vs. Smt. Sudarshna Somani, Kishangarh

ITA 933/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 928/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Abhishek Kumawat, Kishangarh

ITA 927/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 912/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 911/JPR/2015[20010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmenr, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 910/JPR/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Central Circle, Ajmer vs. Shri Manish Kumar Singhal, Kishangarh

ITA 909/JPR/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2008-09

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 908/JPR/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

ACIT, Ajmer vs. Prakash Chand Vijayvargiya, Kishangarh

ITA 907/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Nov 2023AY 2010-11

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

…that the value of the wrist- watches is the income of the assessee. In this connection, reference may be made to the views expressed by Justice Tulzapurkar, as his Lordship then was, of the Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) : TC42R.1775, where, on a difference of opinion between Justice Deshpande and Justice Mukhi, Justice Tulzapurkar agreed with Justice Deshpande and held on the question whether the evidence established that the petitioner was the owner of the gold seized, though there was no direct evidence placed before the taxing authorities to prove that t…

M/S D. N. Singh Through Partner Dudheshwar Nath Singh vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

C.A. No.-003738-003739 - 2023Supreme Court16 May 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

…hey were prevented from doing so. Secondly, all that Section 110 of the Evidence Act does is that it embodies a salutary principle of common law jurisprudence which could be attracted to a set of circumstances that satisfy its condition.” 6 (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom HC) 25 31. The said view has been followed by this Court in Commissoiner of Income Tax, Salem v. K. Chinnathamban7. Therein the Court inter alia held: “8. … The High Court has rightly held that the expression “income” as used in Section 69-A of the Act, has wide meaning which meant anything which came in or resulted in gain.…

The Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur vs. Prakash Chand Lunia (D) Thr Lrs

C.A. No.-007689-007690 - 2022Supreme Court24 Apr 2023

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.R. SHAH

Section 104Section 112Section 135Section 271Section 69A

…this Court in Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT, AIR 1961 SC 663, of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Soni Hinduji Kushalji & Co. vs. CIT, (1973) 89 ITR 112(AP) and of the Bombay High Court in the case of JS Parkar v. VB Palekar, (1974) 94 ITR 616 (Bom) shall be applicable with full force to the facts of the case on hand. 3.2 It is submitted that the Andhra Pradesh High Court observed in para 10 of the judgment in case of Soni Hinduji Kushalji (supra) that when a claim for Civil Appeal Nos. 7689-90 of 2022 Page 9 of 27 deduction is…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 01, Varanasi vs. Shri Ganesh Prasad, Varanasi

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 138/VNS/2020[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi07 Feb 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Income - Mr. Ganesh Prasad, Tax, V. S-6/108, Golghar Katchhari, Circle-1, Aayakarbhawan, Varanasi-221002, U.P. Maqboolalam Road Varanasi-221002, U.P.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Chand Adv. & Sh. Ashutosh BhardwajFor Respondent: Shri A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ld not have been applied. Apart from relying upon express language of section 69A of the Act (as reproduced above) the appellant begs to refer and rely upon a decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar Vs. V.B. Palekar reported in (1973) 94 ITR 616 wherein at page 650 the Hon'ble court observed and held as under:- "Now, it is significant that section 69A speaks of "found to be the owner of........bullion.......". It does not say "found to be in possession, of bullion........." If the legislature had intended that mere possession of gold, etc., would cast an obligation on the possessor to exp…

H.M.Pandey, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 19(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2483/CHNY/2017[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 1996-97

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 148

…of our order, we are inclined to delete the addition. 9. The issue regarding consideration of material in the form of judgment of Civil Court came for consideration before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar and Others, 94 ITR 616, wherein the Hon’ble Bombay High Court has considered this issue and finally this being a three judge decision concurring with each other has considered as under:- 156. On a consideration of the rival submission that were put forward before the Division Bench, Mr.Justice Deshpande negatived all the contentions that were urged on behalf of the peti…

Ych Logistics (India) Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 322/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Kumar Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. S.Palani Kumar, CIT

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92C

…rty who is affected by the raising of this point. (vide rule 12 of the Appellate I.T.A. No.322/Chny/2016 Tribunal Rules, 1946). (See also in this connection B. R. Bamasi v. CIT [1972] 83 ITR 223 (Bom)). 26. In the case of J. S. Parkar v. V. B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616 (Bom), the court said that new contention could be raised before the Tribunal in an appeal which had not been taken either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Income-tax Officer. In the case of CED v. Bipinchandra N. Patel [1990] 186 ITR 29 (Bom), our court was required to consider whether, in an appeal to the Appellate Tribu…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07

Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…se and to draw his own inference on the basis thereof. Circumstantial evidence in such cases is not impermissible. Incases like this it is only the circumstantial evidence which will be available. No direct evidence can be expected......" In case of JS Parker 94 ITR 616 (Bom) it was held that" the tax liability under the Income tax Act is of civil nature. To fasten a tax payer with such a liability it is not necessary that the evidence should be in the nature of "beyond doubt" as is required to fix a criminal liability. Tax liability can be fastened on the basis of preponderance of probabilities.” 14. In view of…

M/S Popular Finance Company, Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cir-1, Thiruvalla

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 204/COCH/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Dec 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)

…be explained on the ground that the assessee was carrying on a lawful business in gold, silver and jewellery and committed an infraction of the law in smuggling gold into the country. Our attention has also been invited to J.S. Parkar vs. V.B. Palekar [1974] 94 ITR 616, where, on a difference of opinion between two learned judges of the Bombay High Court, a third learned Judge agreed with the view that the value of gold confiscated by the customs authorities in smuggling operations was not entitled to deduction against the estimated and assessed income from an undisclosed source. It was observed that the loss ar…