Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

37 ITR 288Supreme Court of India1959#110 most cited

What is Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT authority for?

Where an assessee maintains regular books of account, and these books are not rejected or found defective by the Assessing Officer, any cash deposits or available cash shown in the cash book, if sufficient to cover the transaction, cannot be treated as unexplained income or an addition under sections 68 or 69A.

570

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT · unexplained cash deposit · cash credit section 68 · unexplained money section 69A · rejection of books of account section 145(3) · acceptance of books · sufficiency of cash balance · assessment addition · cash book balance · mercantile system of accounting

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 115BBESection 142(1)Section 147Section 132Section 143(2)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 132(4a)dumb documentsrejection of books of accountsection 69bsection 292csection 145(3)section 34loose paperson-moneysection 10(38)penny stockaddition u/s 68

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5579/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…tamount to evidence. Narayan Chand Baidya Vs. CIT 20 ITR 287 (Cal). it should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work or on irrelevant or inadmissible material. Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC), Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC), Page 170 “On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on su…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5392/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…tamount to evidence. Narayan Chand Baidya Vs. CIT 20 ITR 287 (Cal). it should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work or on irrelevant or inadmissible material. Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC), Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC), Page 170 “On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on su…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 5231/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 5231/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2005-06 Ita No. 5392/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2006-07 Ita No. 5579/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year 2007-08 Acit, Vs. M/S Majestic Properties (P) Ltd., Central Circle-2, 1/18B, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacm7158E Assessee By : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. & Sh. Deepesh Garg, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Shivani Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.10.2022

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Shivani Singh, CIT DR
Section 132

…tamount to evidence. Narayan Chand Baidya Vs. CIT 20 ITR 287 (Cal). it should not be based on mere suspicion, conjecture or guess work or on irrelevant or inadmissible material. Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT 26 ITR 736 (SC), Lalchand Bhagar Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC), Page 170 “On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on su…

Dy CIT-CC-1(1), Mumbai vs. Shree Mangal Jewels P. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1408/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Oct 2022AY 2017-18
Section 131Section 133ASection 68

…come from undisclosed sources. It is not a fit case for treating the amount of Rs. 81,000 as concealed income of the assessee and consequently imposition of penalty was also not justified in this case." In the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court decided the matter in favour of assessee of the ground that it was clear on the record that the assessee maintained the books of accounts according to the mercantile system and there was sufficient cash balance in its cash books and the books of account of the assessee were not challenged by the Assessing officer. If t…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Motisons Jewellers Ltdl, Jaipur

ITA 161/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Sept 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…r termed as black money. So taking into consideration the peculiar over all facts and circumstances discussed supra, it is directed that the addition of ₹ 12,41,704/- be deleted - Appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)) (Copy at Case Law PB Page No. 187-199) which is set in somewhat similar back drop in connection with treatment of the encashment of high denomination notes by the assessee therein on the promulgation of High Denomination Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946as unexplained money on mere conjecture and surmise of the Revenue Authorities.…

Heena Suresh Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6617/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

…cord any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could 19 ITA NO.6614 & 6617/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Suresh M. Jain HUF & others not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon’ble Court held: “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income- tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smugg…

Suresh M Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

ITA 6614/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Blesuresh M. Jain Huf V. Ito-19(3)(4), 52A Nanu Bhai Desai Road 2Nd Floor, Matru Mandir Tardeo Road, Mumbai-400007 Mulji Thakersi Building 2Nd Floor, Mumbai-400004 Pan: Aalhs7460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Heena Suresh Jain V.

For Appellant: Shri. Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri. Vaibhav Jain
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

…cord any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could 19 ITA NO.6614 & 6617/MUM/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) Suresh M. Jain HUF & others not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon’ble Court held: “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income- tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smugg…

Sita Ram Rastogi, Lakhimpur Kheri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(5), Lakhimpur Kheri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 23/LKW/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Sept 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi V. The Ito Prop. M/S Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri Tan/Pan:Agapr6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent By: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 05 09 2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, New Delhi, Dated 26.11.2021, For The Assessment Year 2017-18, Raising The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Made An Addition Of Rs.19,10,000/- As Un Explained Cash Deposit In The Books Maintained By The Assessee Whereas There Is No Such Single Deposit In The Books. 2. That The Additions Of Rs.15,688/- & Rs.5,693/- Have Been Made Without Any Basis Which Are Simply The Guess Work & Therefore Not Justified. 3. That The Learned Income Tax Officer Has Not Pointed Out Any Mistake Or Discrepancy In The Books Of Account As Is Evident From His Order In Paras 3 To 6 & Straight Away Made Up His Mind To Make Addition As Is Evident From His Observation Below Para 6 Of His Order. 4. That The Appellant Had Explained The Availability Of Funds (Old Sbn'S), Which Was Accepted By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. A. D. JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sita Ram Rastogi v. The ITO Prop. M/s Shyam Jewellers Ward 3(5) Lakhimpur Kheri Lakhimpur Kheri TAN/PAN:AGAPR6341R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri K. R. Rastogi, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Harish Gidwani, D.R. Date of hearing: 05 09 2022 Date of pronouncement: 08 09 2022 O R D E R This is assessee’s appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi, dated 26.11.2021, for the Assessment Year 2017-18, raising the following Grounds of Appeal: 1. That the learned Incom…

Manohar Lal Chugh, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 312/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Aug 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 10(38)Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 69

…ed in the eyes of law. As held many cases by Apex court that suspicion how so-ever strong, cannot take the place of proof. Reliance is placed on the following judgements:- 1. Umacharan Shah and Brs v. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) 2. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) 10 Shri Manohar Lal Chugh, Jaipur. Ld. AO has not brought any conclusive material on record to support his contentions. Further, Appellant has duly discharged its onus to prove the genuineness of the transaction of sale of shares. Ld. AO cannot make addition just because there is high difference in purchase price and sale price of the shar…

DCIT, Circle- 21(1), New Delhi vs. Religare Enterprises Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, revenue’s appeal is dismissed and cross-objection

ITA 7552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Delhi29 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia:Assessment Year: 2014-15 Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Religare Enterprises Income-Tax, Circle-21(1), Ltd., 2Nd Floor, Rajlok New Delhi Building, 24-Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 Pan :Aaacv5888N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

…e settled legal position that law as on 1st April of any financial year applies to the assessment of that year. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: •The Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Jute and Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC), following its earlier decisions in CIT vs. Isthmian Steamship Lings (1951) 20 ITR 572 (SC) and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1966) 60 ITR 262 (SC) clearly held as under [refer pages 172-175 of CLPB II]: “The assessee claims a vested right under s.24(2)(iii), as it stood before its amendment in 1957, to have the unabsorbe…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkr Housing Development Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2135/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ing decisions: 1) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apana Ghar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2134/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ing decisions: 1) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Apna Ghar Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2133/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ing decisions: 1) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

ACIT 2(3) 1, Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2132/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ing decisions: 1) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

ACIT 2(3) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Thakkar Housing Developement Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the learned assessing officer are dismissed

ITA 2131/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kirtane, CIT DR
Section 245D(4)

…ing decisions: 1) Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC) ii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) iii) CIT vs. Maharajadhiraja Kameshwar Singh of Darbhanga (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC) iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Umacharan Shaw & Bros vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) vi) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 52. Recently, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dinesh Jain (HUF), 352 ITR 629 after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC…

DCIT, Circle-2, Trichy vs. M/S. Mc Hospital, Nagapattinam

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as the Cross

ITA 11/CHNY/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. M. C. Hospital Income-Tax, Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Circle-2, Trichy. Street, Velipalayam, O/O The Joint Nagapattinam, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tamil Nadu-611001. Tax, Range-2, No. 100, (Pan: Aapfm2058R) Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. No. 6/Chny/2022 In Ita No.11/Chny/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. M. C. Hospital Deputy Commissioner Of Plot No. 38, Sivan Sannathi Income-Tax, Street, Velipalayam, Circle-2, Trichy. Nagapattinam, Vs. O/O The Joint Commissioner Tamil Nadu-611001. Of Income Tax, Range-2, No. (Pan: Aapfm2058R) 100, Nanjikottai Road, Thanjavur, Tamil Nadu- 620001. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Revenue/Appellant By : Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, Jcit Assessee/Cross Objector By : Shri K. P. Dewani, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.08.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-1, Trichy Vide Ita No.535/2019-20/Cit(A0-1/Try Dated 23.09.2020 Against The Assessment Order Passed By Acit, Circle-2(1), Trichy U/S. 143(3) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri Chinthapalli Mehar Chand, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…nce cash in hand, duly recorded in its books of account which were the results of pharmacy sales and hospital receipts. In this respect a useful reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein it has been held as under: “21. The position as it obtained in this case was closely analogous to that which obtained in Messrs. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay (1). In that case the assessee had to satisfactorily explain the possession of 61 High Denomination Notes of Rs. 1,000 each and the Tribunal cam…

ACIT, Central Circle1(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Peninsula Land Limited, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5632/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahaman, Accountat Member Ita No. 5632 & 5633/Mum/2019 (A.Y: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Acit, Cc – 1(3) Vs. M/S Peninsula Land 905, 9Th Floor, Pratistha Ltd., Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg, No. 2, Peninsula (Annexe), M.K .Road, Spenta, Mathuradas Mumbai – 400020. Mill Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Parel, Mumbai- 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact5173A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Aditya Rai. Dr Respondent By : Shri. Vijay Mehta.Ar Date Of Hearing 24.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Two Appeals Filed The By The Revenue Against The Common Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai Passed U/S 153A R.W.S 143(3) & 250 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri. Aditya Rai. DRFor Respondent: Shri. Vijay Mehta.AR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…State of MP, AIR 2002 SC 3206. It is a trite law that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference in this regard is made to the decision of Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [37 ITR 288 (SC)J. The court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusions on suspicions, howsoever strong they may be. It is equally well settled that the Court's decision must rest not upon suspicion but upon legal grounds established by legal testimony. Mere suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. Reliance is place…

Shri.J M Vrushabendraiah, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bellary

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Srihari Kutsa, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Narayana K.R., D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250

…an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment – (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775(SC); (ii) Omar Salay Mohd. Salt vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC); (iii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) Shri J.M. Vrushabendraiah, Hospete Page 52 of 58 14.3 The assessee further submits that it has been held in the under noted cases, that without having any corroborating evidence/material, any of the figures mentioned / appearing on the unsigned loose papers seized / collected by the Dept., during the course of search/survey, having no evident…

Shri Anand Kishore Bagree, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 151/RPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 Jul 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri R.B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 68

…egard, case law relied upon by the ld AR in the case of Navneet Agarwal Vs ITO, Ward -35(3), Kolkata in ITA 2281/Kol/2017 is relevant where in it is observed that: 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) held that assessment could not be based on background of suspicion and in absence of any evidence to support the same. The Hon'ble Court held: "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income-tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to Bengal by 7 country boats acquired…

Gmr Highways Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 495/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh A Thar, CA
Section 14ASection 201Section 234B

…ns of sub-section 3 of section 234B have been amended by the Finance Act, 2015 w.e.f. June 1, 2015 and hence the amended provisions are not applicable for the year under consideration. In this respect relied on (a) Reliance Jute &Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1979) 120 ITR 921 (SC) (b) J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. ITO 119 CTR (SC) 222 (c) Sree Karpagambal Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1999) 238 ITR 842 (Madras) 6.7.2 I have considered the submission of the appellant and the amendment made in section 234B vide Finance Act, 2015 and having regard to the provisions of section 234B as applicable prior to June 1st 2015 interest under sect…