L.R. Gupta v. UOI (194 ITR 32)

JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE -10(1), NEW DELHI vs. H B LEASING & FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DELHI

In the result, Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1245/DEL/2025[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.Joint Commissioner Of Vs H B Leasing & Finance Income Tax, (Osd), Company Ltd. Circle 10(1), C. R. Building, H-72, Connaught Circus, I. P. Estate, Delhi Connaught Place, Delhi Pan:Aaach0713N Appellant Respondent C.O No. 94/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 1245/Del/2025 A.Y. 1988-89) H B Leasing & Finance Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income Company Ltd. Tax, Osd, H-72, Connaught Circus, Circle 10(1) Connaught Place, Delhi C. R. Building, I. P. Estate, Pan:Aaach0713N Delhi

Section 132Section 158BSection 245

…s on the basis of regular returns have been made, then the AO is not empowered to review those regular returns while completing assessments under s. 158BC under Chapter XIV-B. 19. In the case of L.R. Gupta vs. Union of India (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 179 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del), wherein it has held that an assessee is under no obligation to disclose in his return of income all the monies which are received by him, which do not partake the character of income or income 19 ITA No. 1245/Del/2025 & C.O No. 94/Del/2025 JCIT (OSD) Vs. H. B. Leasing and Finance Company liable to tax. If an assessee receives admittedly a…

OM PRAKASH SINGH,ALLAHABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , ALLAHABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 114/ALLD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad27 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Udayan Das Gupta & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Om Prakash Singh, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Of 147A/2, Tagore Town, J.L.N. Income Tax, Central Circle, Road, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan:Aiepp0574G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Bansal, Adv Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 01.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-, Lucknow-3, Dated 11.07.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred Are As Under:- “1. Because Proceeding Under Section 147 Of The Act By Issuance Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 148 On The Basis Of D.V.O. Report His Only Erroneous & Bad, Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2022 Passed In Consequence Of Said Proceeding Is Wholly Without Jurisdiction, Accordingly, The Entire Proceeding In Consequence Of Notice Dated 30.03.2021 Are Vitiated & Not Maintainable. Without Prejudice To The Aforesaid 2. Because The Addition Of Rs.9,26,796/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer On Account Of Alleged Difference In The Valuation Of Office Building Between The Value Appearing In The Audited Books Of Account As Compared To The Valuation Made By The D.V.O., As Also Confirm By The Id. Cit(A), Is Wholly Erroneous As The Report Of The Valuation Officer Is An Estimate & The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

…bout the existence of relevant material which formed foundation of a belief and constituted reasons for entertaining a belief about the escapement of an income. Relying upon the earlier decision of the Court in the case of L.R. Gupta vs. Union of India [1992] 194 ITR 32, the Hon’ble Court observed that information must be something more than rumor or gossip or hunch. There must be some material which could be regarded as information, on the basis of which the ld. AO can have reason to believe that action under section 147 is called for. Only if the information or reason has no nexus with 6 A.Y. 2017-18 Om Praka…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1) , HYDERABAD vs. SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA , HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 178/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

…which has escaped assessment. Therefore, he added the amount of Rs.5,08,48,600/- to income of the assessee U/s.69 of the I.T. Act. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in 194 ITR 32. 26. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “The Assessing Officer has made a further addition of Rs.5,08,48,600/- being undisclosed investment in the hands of the appellant. The ledger account has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer of the appellant in the books of Mr. OSS Prasad. It shows an opening balan…

SUNIL KUMAR AHUJA,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 158/HYD/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri S.Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajendra Kumar CIT(DR)

…which has escaped assessment. Therefore, he added the amount of Rs.5,08,48,600/- to income of the assessee U/s.69 of the I.T. Act. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in 194 ITR 32. 26. In appeal, the learned CIT (A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “The Assessing Officer has made a further addition of Rs.5,08,48,600/- being undisclosed investment in the hands of the appellant. The ledger account has been reproduced by the Assessing Officer of the appellant in the books of Mr. OSS Prasad. It shows an opening balan…

PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) vs. LALJIBHAI KANJIBHAI MANDALIA

The appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High

C.A. No.-004081-004081 - 2022Supreme Court13 Jul 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 143(3)

…reign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 as well as in respect of action of the Revenue in the matter of 9 (2000) 242 ITR 302 (Del.) 10 (2003) 260 ITR 80 (SC) 11 (2005) 278 ITR 36 (Bom.) 12 (2021) 433 ITR 203 (Telangana) 13 (1991) SCC OnLine Del. 584 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del.) 14 (1995) 215 ITR 234 (P&H) 11 search and seizure. 13. In S. Narayanappa v. CIT,15 a case of re-assessment for the reason that income had escaped assessment, this Court held the Revenue must have reason to believe that the income, profits or gains chargeable to income tax had been underassessed. The Court held as under: “2. …..…

MADAN MOHAN TIWARI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 29(3), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is stands

ITA 6925/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Oct 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Sanjay Gargassessment Year : 2008-09 Madan Mohan Tiwari, Vs Income Tax Officer, J-145, Kalkaji, Ward-29(3), New Delhi-110019 Room No.1015, 10Th Floor, Block-E2, Dr. S.P. Mukharjee Civic Centre, Minto Road, New Delhi-110002 Pan-Aeqpt1251F Appellant Respondent

Section 147

…ces, may be regarded as fairly reliable. 14 | P a g e C Venkata Reddy vs ITO [(1967) 66 ITR 212 (Mysore)]  Tangible material The existence of tangible material for formation of opinion, is a pre- requisite L.R Gupta vs Union of India and Others - [(1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del)]  Belief induced by reason and not mere belief In existence of reasons The expression 'reason to believe' predicates that the Assessing Officer holds the belief induced by the existence of reasons for holding such belief. It contemplates existence of. reasons on which the belief is founded, and not merely a belief in the existence of reaso…

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M.S.AGGARWAL

ITA - 169 / 2005HC Delhi23 Apr 2018

Section 132Section 158Section 260

…osed income as reproduced above. The important limb of the definition which constitute the basic essence is ―income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the act.‖ In the case of L.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India 194 ITR 32, the Delhi High Court while construing the expression undisclosed income as used u/s 132 (1) has held that the income which is hidden from the Department is undisclosed income. In 2018:DHC:2640-DB ITA No. 169/2005+connected appeal Page 12 of 77 the inst…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.N. SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3833/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ter indicating their PAN/GIR numbers. The onus cast upon the assessee was discharged and no addition could have been made to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " L. R. Gupta Vs UOI 194 ITR 32 (Del.) " Ramesh Chander Vs CIT, Punjab & Ors 93 ITR 244 (P&H) " Moti Lal and Ors. Vs Preventive Intelligence Officer, Central Excise and Customs Agra 80 ITR 418 (All) " Om Parkash Jindal Vs UOI 104 ITR 381 (P&H) " Auto Finance (P) Ltd. 300 ITR 83 (Del.) " Manish Maheshwari Vs ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC) " Saraya Industries Ltd. Vs UOI 306 ITR 189 (Del.)…

DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. M.N. SECURITIES PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeals of the department are dismissed

ITA 3832/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 3832/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 Ita No. 3833/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Vs M/S M. N. Securities Pvt. Ltd., 8Th Floor, Statesman House, Tax, Central Circle-19, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aadcm0102D Assessee By : Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Shefali Swroop, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.02.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2018 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Department Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Each Dated 25.04.2014 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xii, New Delhi.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Shefali Swroop, CIT DR

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 68

…ter indicating their PAN/GIR numbers. The onus cast upon the assessee was discharged and no addition could have been made to the income of the assessee in terms of Section 68 of the Act. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: " L. R. Gupta Vs UOI 194 ITR 32 (Del.) " Ramesh Chander Vs CIT, Punjab & Ors 93 ITR 244 (P&H) " Moti Lal and Ors. Vs Preventive Intelligence Officer, Central Excise and Customs Agra 80 ITR 418 (All) " Om Parkash Jindal Vs UOI 104 ITR 381 (P&H) " Auto Finance (P) Ltd. 300 ITR 83 (Del.) " Manish Maheshwari Vs ACIT 289 ITR 341 (SC) " Saraya Industries Ltd. Vs UOI 306 ITR 189 (Del.)…

LALITA ANUP ANAND,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7415/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year-2012-13 Smt. Lalita Anup Anand, Income Tax Officer 337, Ashish Indl. Estate, Ward-21(2)(2), बनाम/ Gokhale Road, Room No.111, 1St Floor, Vs. Dadar (West), Piramal Chambers, Parel, Mumbai-400028 Mumbai-400012 Pan No.Aadpa1527B (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee)

…anup Anand 15. Explaining the scope of the expression "information", in the background of s. 132 of the Act, which logic is equally applicable to a case under s. 147 of the Act, in L.R. Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1992) 101 CTR (Del) 179 : (1992) 194 ITR 32 (Del), a Division Bench of this Court observed thus : "The expression 'information' must be something more than a mere rumour or a gossip or a hunch. There must be some material which can be regarded as information which must exist on the file on the basis of which the authorising officer can have reason to believe that action under s. 132 is call…