K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal v. DCIT (Mum) (TM)

72 ITD 340Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2000#3938 most cited

What is K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal v. DCIT (Mum) (TM) authority for?

Additions to income cannot be made based solely on seized documents found during a search if those documents cannot be reasonably related to the assessee. There must be corroborative evidence connecting the assessee to the seized material.

30

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2019 to 2025.

Also referred to as

D.A. Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 · seized paper · search · addition to income · corroborative evidence · third party information

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69Section 115BBESection 131Section 153ASection 28Section 69B

Issues it is cited on

voluntary admissionarbitrary and capricioussection 132(1)(a)section 158b(b)section 158bb(1)third party informationabatement of assessmentsection 194iasection 158bdstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 153a proceedings

Judgments citing K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal v. DCIT (Mum) (TM)

Atul Tantia, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cen. Cir.-3(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 492/KOL/2021[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata28 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 492/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Atul Tantia Deputy Commissioner Of Jc-25, Gpt Centre Income Tax – Central Circle - Vs 3(1), Kolkata Sector-Iii Salt Lake City Kolkata - 700098 [Pan : Abmpt7504K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, A/R and Shri Amit Agarwal, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Subhrajyoti Bhattacharjee, CIT, D/R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

…said paper, therefor does not come within the compass of definition of "Document", to be used as an evidence. The papers seized have no evidently value and hence same cannot be a basis to tax undisclosed income." 12. It is held in Patel (DJU Vs. DCIT (200(n 72 ITD 340(Mum), "it was concluded with reference to sheet of paper found during the search by AO that the word "Rs." figuring with the sheet of belongs to the appellant, because he belonged to "Radhaswamy", cult and hence it belongs to him, but such an inference was not found sustainable on the basis of such slender evidence, so that the addition based on t…

M/S. Srinivas Institute of Medical Science and Research Centre, Mangalroe vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bengaluru

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

ITA 533/BANG/2022[N/A]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Dec 2022

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: N.A.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Dr. G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 10Section 11Section 12ASection 269S

…nts by assessee. We place reliance on the following judgements in support of our above findings: (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 5.11. Thus, we are agreeing with the contention of ld. AR that placing reliance on the s…

M/S. Devaraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes (Regd), Kolar vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 155/BANG/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: Na

For Appellant: Sri Ramasubramaniyan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Pradeep Kumar, D.R
Section 11Section 12ASection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…nts by assessee. We place reliance on the following judgements in support of our above findings: (i) CIT vs D.K.Gupta 174 Taxman 476 (Delhi) (ii) Ashwini Kumar vs ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) (iii) S.P.Goyal vs DCIT (Mum) (TM) 82 ITD 85 (MUM) (iv) D.A.Patel vs DCIT 72 ITD 340 (Mum) (v) Amarjeet Singh Bakshi (HUF) vs ACIT 86 ITD 13 (Delhi) (TM) (vi) Nagarjuna Construction Co Ltd vs DCIT 23 Taxman.com 239 (vii) CIT vs C.L.Khatri 174 Taxman 652 (viii) T.S.Venkatesan vs ACIT 74 ITD 298 (ix) CIT vs Atam Valves Pvt Ltd 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) 248. Thus, we are agreeing with the contention of ld. AR that placing reliance on the s…

DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai vs. M/S. Johnkumar Trust, Puducherry

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

ITA 3092/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

…said paper, therefor does not come within the compass of definition of "Document", to be used as an evidence. The papers seized have no evidently value and hence same cannot be a basis to tax undisclosed income." 12. It is held in Patel (DJU Vs. DCIT (200(n 72 ITD 340(Mum), "it was concluded with reference to sheet of paper found during the search by AO that the word "Rs." figuring with the sheet of belongs to the appellant, because he belonged to "Radhaswamy", cult and hence it belongs to him, but such an inference was not found sustainable on the basis of such slender evidence, so that the addition based on t…

Shro A/ Johnkumar, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, CC-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3028/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 May 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3028/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr.A. Johnkumar, V. The Dy. Commissioner- No.28, Savari Padayatchi Street, Of Income Tax, Nellithope, Central Circle-1(4), Pondicherry-605 005. Chennai. [Pan: Afnpj 4673 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. S. Xavier Felix, AdvFor Respondent: Mr. M.Rajan, CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)Section 69Section 69C

…said paper, therefor does not come within the compass of definition of "Document", to be used as an evidence. The papers seized have no evidently value and hence same cannot be a basis to tax undisclosed income." 12. It is held in Patel (DJU Vs. DCIT (200(n 72 ITD 340(Mum), "it was concluded with reference to sheet of paper found during the search by AO that the word "Rs." figuring with the sheet of belongs to the appellant, because he belonged to "Radhaswamy", cult and hence it belongs to him, but such an inference was not found sustainable on the basis of such slender evidence, so that the addition based on t…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of paper are required to be supported/corroborated by other evidence which may include the statement of a person, who admittedly is a party to the nothings. f) In the case of D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2000] 72 ITD 340 (Mum.) it has been held that simply because a sheet of paper was found during the search at the premises of an assessee, he could not be saddled with a tax liability unless it could conceivably be related to the assessee in some reasonable manner. g) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT V. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bombay…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3802/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of paper are required to be supported/corroborated by other evidence which may include the statement of a person, who admittedly is a party to the nothings. f) In the case of D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2000] 72 ITD 340 (Mum.) it has been held that simply because a sheet of paper was found during the search at the premises of an assessee, he could not be saddled with a tax liability unless it could conceivably be related to the assessee in some reasonable manner. g) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT V. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bombay…

Rohan Mehta, (Legal Heir of Late Mr Jitendra N Mehta), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 47, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 3799/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Hema Kataria
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…cannot fall in this category. Nothings on loose sheets of paper are required to be supported/corroborated by other evidence which may include the statement of a person, who admittedly is a party to the nothings. f) In the case of D.A. Patel v. Dy. CIT [2000] 72 ITD 340 (Mum.) it has been held that simply because a sheet of paper was found during the search at the premises of an assessee, he could not be saddled with a tax liability unless it could conceivably be related to the assessee in some reasonable manner. g) The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of PCIT V. Umesh Ishrani [2019] 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bombay…

Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 9(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7122/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(2) E-33, Garib Society, N.S. Road No. 5 Room No. 419, 4Th Floor Jvpd Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan: Aabcd2841C

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Jyothi Laxmi Nayar
Section 115JSection 133ASection 143Section 143(2)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/s Dreamz Achievers (India) Pvt. Ltd., v. Income Tax Officer – 9(3)(2) E-33, Garib society, N.S. Road No. 5 Room No. 419, 4th Floor JVPD Scheme, Mumbai – 400 049 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 PAN: AABCD2841C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department by : Jyothi Laxmi Nayar Date of Hearing : 12.03.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2020 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee aga…

DCIT 4(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Ahinsa Infrastucture & Developers Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri G. Manjunatha Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Vs. M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Aayakar Bhavan Developers Ltd., M.K.Road, 60, Muljijetha Building 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent) & Co No.282/Mum/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.3735/Mum/2017 (Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Ahinsa Infrastructure & Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle – 4(1) Developers Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan 60, Muljijetha Building M.K.Road, 3Rd Floor, 185/187, Princess Mumbai – 400 020 Street, Mumbai – 400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aadca3891R (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…um)], ACIT v/s. Shailesh S. Shah -[(1997) 3 ITD 153 (Mum)], AtuI Kumar Jain v/s. DCIT - [(1999) 64 TTJ (Del) 786], ACIT v/s. Sri RadheShyamPoddar - [(1992) 41 ITD 441 (Cal)], Ashwini Kumar v/s. ITO - [(1992) 42 TTJ (Del) 644)], D.A. Patel v/s. Dy. CIT- [(2000)72 ITD 340 (Mum)], ACIT v/s. Rakesh M. Shah - [(2004) ISOT (Mum) 224], S.P. Goyal v/s. Dy. CIT - [(2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum) (TM)], Dy. CIT v/s Ex. Of the Estate of Late Shri D.K. Shah - [I.T.A. No. 2996/M/02, Order Dated 23 January, 2013 (Mumbai-Trib)], Amarjit Singh Bakshi [HUF] v/s. ACIT [(2003) 263 ITR (AT) 75 (Del) (TM)], S.K. Gupta v/s. Dy. CIT- [(1999)63…