K.P. Varghese v. ITO

131 ITR 597Supreme Court of India1981#44 most cited

What is K.P. Varghese v. ITO authority for?

An addition to income cannot be made merely on the basis of a difference in valuation of assets or a Valuation Officer's report without establishing actual understatement of consideration or the source of unexplained funds through proper enquiry. The Assessing Officer must conduct proper enquiry and satisfy the conditions for making such additions.

989

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2000 to 2026.

Also referred to as

K.P. Varghese v. ITO · 131 ITR 597 · difference in valuation · unexplained investment · Valuation Officer report · deletion of addition · Assessing Officer enquiry · Section 69 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · no addition on suspicion · understatement of consideration

Also reported as

7 Taxmann 13

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 292CSection 69Section 153CSection 115BBESection 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 5(8)section 52closely held companyaccumulated profitsdumb documentssection 132(4a)section 131(1a)section 260section 69bsection 292csection 292bsection 292

Judgments citing K.P. Varghese v. ITO

Vaidya Mangat Rai Foundation, Chandigarh vs. CIT(Exemption), Chandigarh

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

ITA 2668/DEL/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Apr 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharmavaidya Mangat Rai The Commissioner Of Foundation Vs. Income Tax (Exemptions) Friends Colony Chandigarh Gali No.2, Hansi Road Bhiwani. Pan-Aadtv 6078Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Adv. Department By Ms. Sapna Bhattia, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 25/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/04/2024

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 80(5)Section 80GSection 80G(5)

…amendment procedure. 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , “ Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the s…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 248/CHNY/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…ility of a different person with the same name has not been established by the assessee. However, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, Ld. AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to that he did not have any f…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 247/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…ility of a different person with the same name has not been established by the assessee. However, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, Ld. AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to that he did not have any f…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj, Thiruvarur

ITA 246/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.246/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.247/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.248/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Dcit Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj बनाम/ Central Circle-2(1), 70/33, G.S. North Street Vs. Chennai. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaepk-9399-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.14/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.246/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) & 5. Cross Objection No.15/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.247/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) & 6. Cross Objection No.16/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.248/Chny/2023) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Shri Rajagopal Kamaraj Dcit बनाम 70/33, G.S. North Street Central Circle-2(1), / Vs. Mannargudi, Thiruvarur-614 001. Chennai.

For Appellant: Shri V. Nagaprasad (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT)-Ld.Sr.AR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 153D

…ility of a different person with the same name has not been established by the assessee. However, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, Ld. AO was not correct in stating that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence to that he did not have any f…

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 582/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…this statement. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material.…

DCIT Central Circle2(4), Chennai vs. Shri O. Panneerselvam, Chennai

In the result, the cross-objections stands dismissed

ITA 581/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jmand Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.581/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.582/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri O. Panneerselvam बनाम Central Circle-2(4), No.70, South Agraharam, / Vs. Chennai. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 3. Cross Objection No.5/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.581/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 4. Cross Objection No.6/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.582/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri O. Panneerselvam Dcit बनाम No.70, South Agraharam, Central Circle-2(4), / Vs. Tenkarai, Periakulam-625 601. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Amapp-6689-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant/Cross Objector) : (!"थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nanda Kumar (Cit) - Ld. Dr !"थ"कीओरसे/Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18-01-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05-04-2024

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar (Advocate)- Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nanda Kumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 153C

…this statement. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material.…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 606/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…statement only. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material.…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 605/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…statement only. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material.…

DCIT Central Circle 2(4), Chennai vs. Shri Vaithilingam, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the revenue as well as the cross-objections of the assessee, for all the three years, stands dismissed

ITA 604/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.604/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.605/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.606/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Vaithilingam बनाम Central Circle-2(4) No.3/335, South Street, Chennai. Telungankudikadu, Orathanad, / Vs. Thanjavur-614 625. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeapv-5323-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. Cross Objection No.51/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.604/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. Cross Objection No.52/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.605/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. Cross Objection No.53/Chny/2023 (In Ita No.606/Chny/2023) (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri J. Purushotaman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT)- Ld. DR
Section 153C

…statement only. The conclusions of Ld. CIT(A), in this regard, find our concurrence. 18. Further, the assessee could not be expected to discharge a reverse burden as per legal principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (131 ITR 597) holding that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. Therefore, it was onus of Ld.AO to establish that the assessee was in receipt of payments as noted in the seized material.…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 215/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 214/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 213/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 127/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 126/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Chennai vs. Shri K. Palaniswami, Salem

The appeals of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 125/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.125/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 2. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.126/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 3. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.127/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami बनाम 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Central Circle-2(2) / Vs. Chennai. Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (!"थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.213/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & 5. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.214/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) & 6. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.215/Chny/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ Shri Karuppagounder Palaniswami Dcit 171/1B, Rajapuram 1St Street, Vs. Central Circle-2(2) Nedunchalai Nagar, Salem-636 004. Chennai. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ayxpp-6611-P ((अपीलाथ"/Appellant)) : (!"थ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Kumar (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)

…was casted on the assessee to establish that such transactions had not happened and the assessee had not received the impugned amount from the searched group. The same run contrary to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs ITO (131 ITR 597) as enumerated by us in preceding paragraph 5.12. The Hon’ble Court held that onus of establishing that the conditions of taxability are fulfilled would be on revenue and throwing this burden on the assessee would be to cast an almost impossible burden upon him to establish the negative. 9. We further find that during appellate proceedings, the a…

M/S. Birmani Charitable Foundation, Nashik vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 113/PUN/2024[--]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.113/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. M/S.Birmani Charitable The Commissioner Of Foundation, V Income Tax(Exemption), H 227, Deepak Mahal, Lam S Pune. Road, Deolali Camp, Dist.Nashik – 422401. Pan: Aaicb8213B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 28/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 80G Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Rejecting The Assessee’S Application Filed In Form No.10Ab For Approval Under Section 80G(5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : M/S.Birmani Charitable Foundation [A]

Section 10Section 12ASection 80GSection 80G(5)

…ble Foundation [A] 7. In this background we have to interpret the relevant provisions. To interpret the provisions, we shall refer to the Budget Speech of the Hon’ble Finance Minister. 7.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K P Varghese Vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) has observed as under regarding use of Speech of a Minister as a tool in interpretation: Quote , “ Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the s…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

ITA 1066/BANG/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 234BSection 271ASection 69

…from search and seizure perspective and such a non speaking document are referred for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K.P. Verghese Vs. ITP (131 ITR 597), wherein held that fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the abscence of cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 174 Taxman 476, wherein held that adhoc/dumb documents without any corroborative evidence finding that the alleged documents have mat…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…rom search and seizure perspective and such a non- speaking document are referred for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K.P. Verghese Vs. ITP (131 ITR 597), wherein held that fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 174 Taxman 476, wherein held that adhoc/dumb documents without any corroborative evidence finding that the alleged documents have mate…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…rom search and seizure perspective and such a non- speaking document are referred for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K.P. Verghese Vs. ITP (131 ITR 597), wherein held that fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 174 Taxman 476, wherein held that adhoc/dumb documents without any corroborative evidence finding that the alleged documents have mate…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…rom search and seizure perspective and such a non- speaking document are referred for initiation of proceedings u/s 153C of the Act. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri K.P. Verghese Vs. ITP (131 ITR 597), wherein held that fictional receipt cannot be deemed to be a receipt in the absence of cogent material to support the factum of actual receipt. Further, Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. D.K. Gupta 174 Taxman 476, wherein held that adhoc/dumb documents without any corroborative evidence finding that the alleged documents have mate…