Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHOPAL vs. SH. PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA, BHOPAL

In the result the “impugned order” is sustained on the first

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshidcit, Prakash Chandra, बनाम/ Bhopal 16/244, Kings Vs. Shopping Centre, Mp Nagar, Zone-I, Bhopal-462011 Madhya Pradesh (Pan:Aappg5194E)

…hases and cash sales in his books along with invoice numbers. The assessing officer has stated that average monthly cash sale was about Rs.1.37 crore and in some instances purchases were made in cash. Supreme Court in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath vs CIT in 35 ITR 416 held that, amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as related to business. Payments received from various customers cannot be doubted until contrary material is brought on record. To treat a receipt as unexplained income the AO needs to be in possession of some material indicating that the assessee has received certain amounts w…

LAKHPAT TRADING AND INDUSTRYS PVT. LTD.,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Blelakhpat Trading & Acit, Circle-3 Industryspvt. Ltd. Jodhpur G-72/73 79/80, 1St Phase, Boranada, Jodhpur - 342001 Pan No. Aaccl 5668 C Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate & Smt. Raksha Birla, Ca (Physical) Smt. Runi Pal, Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/ Cit(A)] Dated 26.06.2025 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein The Rejection Of Its Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3), Estimation Of Income & Reducing Genuine Sales.

…annot be penalised. The learned CIT(A) has already dealt with the issue by following various pronouncements which are available at page 10 of the impugned order which has been reproduced above. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath v. CIT; 35 ITR 416 held that amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as business receipts. The Hon'ble Patna High Court in Bahri Brothers (154 ITR 244) held that identity of creditors is not relevant for cheque transactions. In such a situation, if part payment through cheque/RTGS from the same party is accepted, how the cash sale which has been d…

ITO, PHALODI vs. VARSHA MILLS, KHICHAN

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Hon’Bleito Varsha Mills, Khichan Phalodi E-51, Industrial Estate, Khichan, Phalodi, Jodhpur – 342308 Pan No.: Aaifv 9450 D Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani, Advocate (Virtual) Smt. Runi Pal – Cit-Dr (Virtual) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 29.01.2026. Date Of Pronouncement 26.02.2026. Order Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As Nfac/Cit(A)] Dated 07.02.2024 With Respect To Assessment Year 2017-18 Challenging Therein Decision Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 69A On Account Of Un-Explained Cash Deposits During Demonetization Period & By Invoking Provisions Of Section 145(3) Of The Act.

…hifted to Mumbai. Moreover, the bank account being an NPA, the appellant was unable to deposit the sum into bank account. This is the cause why appellant deposited the cash in bank accounts at Mumbai. Supreme Court in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath vs CIT in 35 ITR 416 held that, amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as related to business. Payments received from various customers cannot be doubted until contrary material is brought on record. To treat a receipt as unexplained income the AO needs to be in possession of some material indicating that the assessee has received certain amounts w…

EMERALD GEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

…is well settled law that business receipts credited in the books cannot be assessed u/s 68 merely because they are received in cash, unless the sales are found to be bogus. Reliance is being placed on the following decisions:- (i) Lakhmichand Baijnath v. CIT (35 ITR 416) (SC), (ii) Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO (298 ITR 349) (Raj.), (iii) Shree Sanand Textiles Industries Ltd. v. DCIT (ITAT Ahmedabad). 8. In the present case, the assessee has declared a total turnover of about Rs.270 crores, and the cash sales corresponding to the cash deposits constitute only a negligible fraction of the total turnover. The declar…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), SURAT, SURAT vs. KISHAN BARANWAL, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.214/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Dcit, Vs. Shri Kishan Baranwal Circle – 2(1)(1), 217, 2Nd Floor, Aryaman Arcade, Surat Bhagal, Surat- 395003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Bjkpb0758E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Respondent By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Date Of Hearing 12/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/11/2025

…pts were regularly deposited in his bank account. It was also observed that the assessee’s cash sale was comparatively much lesser than earlier years. The CIT(A) relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmichand Baijnath vs. CIT, 35 ITR 416 (SC), wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the amount credited in business books can normally be presumed as related to business. The CIT(A) further observed that the payment received from various customers cannot be doubted until contrary material is brought on record that assessee received cash from other sources. To 5 ITA No.214/SRT/2024/A…

JAYVADAN RUGHNATHWALA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(1), SURAT

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth Assessment Year 2018-19

…o be noted that the assessing officer has not invoked section 115BBE in the assessment order. 20 In support of the above the reliance is placed on the under mentioned decisions of courts: I Dr.TA Qureshi vs CIT-287 ITR 0547 (SC) ii. Lakhmichand Baijnath v CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC) Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v/s CIT 61 ITR 428 (SC) iv CIT v/s D P Sandu Bros Chembur (P) Ltd 273 ITR 1 (SC) v CIT v Shilpa Dyeing & Printing Mills (P) Ltd 39 taxmann.com 3 (Gu)) vi JK Chokshi vs ACIT - Tax Appeal 149 of 2003 (Guj.) vii Green Associates vs PCIT-Tax Appeal No 1199 of 2018 (Gu)) viii DCIT v/s Radhe Developers India Ltd329 ITR 1 (Gu…

MARIAMMA KURIAN,BHOPAL vs. ITO-1(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Boradmariamma Kurian, Income Tax Officer 1(1) Mig-93 A-Sector, Bhopal Vs. Sonagiri Piplani, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abspk4941P Assessee By S/Shri Ashish Goyal & N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 25.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.08.2025 O R D E R

…sale of this rural agricultural land. The department has not established any other source. It is a settled proposition of law that in case there is only one source of income, any unaccounted income shall be treated as out of that source. Laxmi Chand Baijnath 35 ITR 416 (SC) Margret Hope Tea Mfg. Co 201 ITR 747 (Cal.); Krishna Kumar Paliwal 9 IT] 348 (Trib. Indore); Shri Madhusudan Dhakad 44 IT] 401 (Trib. Indore) 4. The assessee in any case, purchased another agricultural land for Rs. 30.60 lakhs. This fact was also uncontroverted. Thus, the capital gains was invested in purchase of another agricultural land a…