Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

56 ITR 365Supreme Court of India1965#2796 most cited

What is Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT authority for?

An appellate authority has the jurisdiction to admit additional evidence if it is necessary for a complete and effective adjudication of the matter.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT · 56 ITR 365 · Supreme Court · admission of additional evidence · appellate authority powers · complete adjudication · effective adjudication · Rule 29 Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules · Section 250(4) Income Tax Act · Rule 46A Income Tax Rules · evidence in appeal · tax appeals

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 69ASection 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 12ABSection 144Section 147
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 133(a)section 46asection 46admission of additional evidencerule 46asection 250(4)section 44asection 44absection 44section 133section 133aincome-tax officer

Judgments citing Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT

Shri Meer Hassan, Dehradun vs. ITO, Dehradun

Accordingly quashed. The ground No.1 is accordingly allowed

ITA 1571/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Dr. M.L. Meena

For Appellant: Shri Girish Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Saroha, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234A

…that the assessee has first time raised this ground which is not permissible under law. Ld. DR for the Revenue also relied on the judgments in cases of CIT vs. Manish Buildwell (P.) Ltd. (2011) 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi), Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 and Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 2006-TIOL-198-SC-IT. 8. However, we are of the considered view that this ground was very much raised by the assessee as ground no.3 before the ld. CIT (A) who has determined the same vide impugned order. Moreover, legal ground can be raised by the parties to the lis at any stage. Moreover, assessee has already tak…

DCIT, Circle-2 (1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Jagson Colorchem Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue and the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 112/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं. Ita No.112/Ahd/2017 With Co No. 32/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Asstt. Years: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.RFor Respondent: Shri Karan Shah, A.R
Section 195Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40

…has held that the purpose of Rule-46A is to ensure that there is no miscarriage of justice and though exception provided in Rule-46A did not exist the evidences should be admitted after affording opportunity to the A.O. - Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 - Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kamlaben Sureshchandra Bhati (2014) 44 Taxmann.com 459 - have held that the admission of additional evidences could not be stated to be in breach of requirement of Rule 46A, particularly when interest of revenue was safeguarded by calling for remand report and permitting AO…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Parnav Vikas India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 877/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Acit, Vs. M/S. Parnav Vikas India Circle-20(1), New Delhi Ltd., 12-A, Shivaji Marg, New Delhi Pan :Aaacp1537C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Manoj Kumar Mahar, Sr.Dr Respondent By Shri K. Sampath, Adv. & Shri V. Rajkumar, Adv.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

…ing IT Law, is that the assessee should adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures full, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. A seven-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 (SC) had observed as under: "Proceedings taken for the recovery of tax under the provisions of the Act are naturally intended to be over without unnecessary delay, and so, it is the duty of the parties, both the Department and the assessee, to lead all their evidence at the stage when the matter is in charge of the ITO." 23. It is for the aforesai…

Mahugun India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2817/DEL/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Oct 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anandee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shefali Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 139Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 276DSection 37(1)Section 43Section 43B

…r this year or for any other Assessment Year covered by Section 153A of I.T. Act. She also placed reliance on the following case laws: i. CIT, Central-I vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) ii. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 (SC) iii. Goetze India Ltd. vs. CIT 284 ITR 323 (SC)/2006-TIO:-198-SC-IT. iv. National Thermal Power Company Ltd. vs. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 v. GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs. Income-tax Officer [2002] 125 Taxman 963 (SC) vi. Filatex India Ltd. (2014-TIOL-1325-HC-DEL-IT) vii. Anil Kumar Bhatia 24 Taxmann.com 98 viii. Indu Lata Rangwala 2016-TIOL-…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are

ITA 6880/DEL/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 14A

…ining & Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi. 7.1. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that no supporting documents were filed before A.O. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills & Co., 56 ITR 365 and submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. 7.2. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and referred to paper book which is seized document, PB-3 bank statement to show that entry in the seized document have been explained. 8. After…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Sainik Mining & Allied Services Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are

ITA 6879/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 14A

…ining & Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi. 7.1. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the A.O. and submitted that no supporting documents were filed before A.O. Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills & Co., 56 ITR 365 and submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Ld. CIT(A) for reconsideration. 7.2. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before authorities below and referred to paper book which is seized document, PB-3 bank statement to show that entry in the seized document have been explained. 8. After…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Spectrum Coal & Power Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the department is dismissed

ITA 5589/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132Section 153A

…matter is in charge of the Income Tax Officer. Therefore, failing to produce evidence would give presumption against the assessee-company. The Ld. D.R. relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Ltd., vs. CIT, Bombay 56 ITR 365 and also referred to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. The Ld. D.R. in the alternative contention submitted that the matter may be remanded to Ld. CIT(A) for appraisal of the seized document. 6 The Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below and submitted that document was not recovered from the…

Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5096/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, & Nippun Mital, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C

…d opportunities given by the AD and also the CIT(A), the assesse did not produce any evidence to disprove the case of the AO. The Supreme Court has held that the parties must lead evidence during the course of assessment proceedings ( Keshav Mills & Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC). In the instant case no evidence produced before AO or CIT (A) to disprove: - incriminating evidence against the assesse in the form of seized documents Although, the rigors of Indian Evidence Act do not apply to Income Tax proceedings, section 114{g) of Indian Evidence Act clearly says that if evidence is not produced, it is presumed to g…

Adarsh Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 5095/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Amit Goel, & Nippun Mital, CAsFor Respondent: Sh. Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153C

…d opportunities given by the AD and also the CIT(A), the assesse did not produce any evidence to disprove the case of the AO. The Supreme Court has held that the parties must lead evidence during the course of assessment proceedings ( Keshav Mills & Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC). In the instant case no evidence produced before AO or CIT (A) to disprove: - incriminating evidence against the assesse in the form of seized documents Although, the rigors of Indian Evidence Act do not apply to Income Tax proceedings, section 114{g) of Indian Evidence Act clearly says that if evidence is not produced, it is presumed to g…

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Nirman Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 809/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…the state (53 ITR 232). No doubt the Ld. CIT(A) has co terminus powers as that of the AO, however, as per the scheme of the Act, it appears that the relevant material evidence need to be adduced primarily before the AO as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 56 ITR 365. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO had the opportunity to enquire during assessment proceedings as well as during remand proceedings. Having failed to do so asking the Ld. CIT(A) to enquire in detail is akin to making the first appellate authority the assessing officer. In the scheme of the Act there are powers given to the Commis…

D.C.I.T CC - VII, Kolkata vs. M/S Anand Nirman Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jul 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं/And "ी वसीम अहमद, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am]

Section 250Section 250(4)Section 68

…the state (53 ITR 232). No doubt the Ld. CIT(A) has co terminus powers as that of the AO, however, as per the scheme of the Act, it appears that the relevant material evidence need to be adduced primarily before the AO as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 56 ITR 365. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO had the opportunity to enquire during assessment proceedings as well as during remand proceedings. Having failed to do so asking the Ld. CIT(A) to enquire in detail is akin to making the first appellate authority the assessing officer. In the scheme of the Act there are powers given to the Commis…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6802/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…s under:- “1. Additional Ground: Additional ground cannot be raised at this point for the reason the fact on which the legal point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assess…

M/S. Chitrakoot Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 6801/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Naveen Chandra, CIT(DR)
Section 127Section 132Section 139Section 143(2)Section 144Section 153CSection 68

…s under:- “1. Additional Ground: Additional ground cannot be raised at this point for the reason the fact on which the legal point is being raised is not before the ITAT. Cases Relied are: 1. Manish Buildwel 18 taxmann.com 27(Del) 2. Keshav Mills Co Ltd 56 ITR 365 (SC) 3. Goetze India Ltd 284 ITR 323(SC) 4. Gurjargravres P Ltd 11 ITR 1 (SC) 5. Inventors Industrial Corpn Ltd 194 ITR 548(Bom) 2. If jurisdiction of the person searched as well as the jurisdiction of the Assessee to whom the notice u/s 153C is to be issued, both are vested with the same Assessing Officer, satisfaction recorded by the Assess…

Om Logistics Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4305/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita No. 4305/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2010-11 Om Logistics Ltd., Vs Acit, 130, Transport Nagar, Ring Road, Central Circle-21, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110035 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaco4716C Assessee By : Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Rachna Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.04.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.04.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.06.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT DR
Section 44A

…its claim for incurring the expenses which were mainly in cash. Therefore, the AO had no option except to make the estimated disallowance. The reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365 9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that growth in the total turnover of the assessee was about 24% which incrased the total revenue of the assessee who was engaged in the business of transportation. The assessee for the purpo…

Rajaram B.Borana, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 25(3(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 6564/MUM/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Apr 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2007-08

For Appellant: Mr. S.M. Bandi,ARFor Respondent: Mr. Purushottam Kumar,DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…w its admission at the appellate stage especially when the evidence was available to the party at the initial stage and was not produced by him It has been held so in Velji Deoraj & Co. vs. CIT (1968) 68 ITR 708, 713-14 (Bom); Keshav Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1965) 56 ITR 365,381 (SC); Swastik Oil Mills Ltd. vs. H.B. Munshi (1968) 21 STC 383 (SC) and State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Production Ltd. (1994) 94 STC 410, 417-18 (SC) . The assessees who are guilty of 10 remissness and gross negligence are not entitled to indulgence being shown to adduce additional evidence in second appeal. In view of…

M/S. Global Televenture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1341/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I Vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) has relied upon ratio of 7- Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 and returned a ratio that assessee make all claims and adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures fun, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "22 . ……. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income Ta…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1336/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I Vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) has relied upon ratio of 7- Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 and returned a ratio that assessee make all claims and adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures fun, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "22 . ……. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income Ta…

M/S. Global Heritage Venture Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1335/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I Vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) has relied upon ratio of 7- Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 and returned a ratio that assessee make all claims and adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures fun, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "22 . ……. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income Ta…

M/S. Global Realty Creations Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the 4 Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed

ITA 1245/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: Sh. Sudesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K.Saroha, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 14ASection 68

…'ble Delhi High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Central-I Vs. Manish Build Well (P.) Ltd. [2011] 16 taxmann.com 27 (Delhi) has relied upon ratio of 7- Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1965] 56 ITR 365 and returned a ratio that assessee make all claims and adduce the entire evidence in his possession at the earliest point of time. This ensures fun, fair and detailed enquiry and verification. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as under: "22 . ……. The fundamental rule which is valid in all branches of law, including Income Ta…

Mohd. Suleman, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6491/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6491/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Suleman, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Anwar, H.No. 104, Shekhpur, Ward-1(4), Khichra Gulawati Road, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Clzps3936F Assessee By : Sh. Harsh Pandey, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.09.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A), Ghaziabad.

For Appellant: Sh. Harsh Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Choudhari, Sr. DR
Section 148Section 69A

…make such further inquiry on his own or direct the AO to do the same, as he may think fit. Therefore; the CIT(A) is well within his rights if he asks or allows to produce or file additional evidence or papers in the manner he thinks fit. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. 56 ITR 365 (SC). Additional evidence can also be taken in the shape of affidavit sworn in by third party such as creditors (Hanutram Ramprasad V CIT 1978,114ITR19(Gau). It is within the discretion of CIT (A) to admit or not to admit further evidence. But such Discrition must be reasonably exercised. Rajkumar V CIT 102 ITR 525 approved by SC in Jute Corporati…