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

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 1643/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2015-16

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore vs. M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1741/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

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…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1705/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2010-11

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…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1622/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2011-12

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…

Gmr Infrastructure Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1600/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2013-14

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…

Gmr Infrastructure Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bangalore

In the result, Ground no. 1 raised for A

ITA 1599/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 May 2022AY 2012-13

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…

Lodha Developers Ltd(Formerly Known As Lodha Developers Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2349/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Blemacrotech Developers Limited V. Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} Room No. 655, 6Th Floor 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit – Central Circle – 7(3) V. Macrotech Developers Limited Room No. 655, 6Th Floor {Erstwhile Lodha Developers Limited} 412, 4Th Floor, 17G Vardhaman Chamber Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Cawasji Patel Road, Horniman Circle Mumbai – 400020 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aaacl1490J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora &For Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj
Section 37(1)

…of additional evidence. In this regard, Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that no addition can be made on the basis of mere surmise and conjecture. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements: a) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) b) Sayaji Iron & Engg Co. (253 ITR 749) (Guj HC) (Refer Page 342 to 345 of the paper book) 17. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that no ad hoc disallowance can be made for expenses incurred for purpose of business without giving any basis of estimation. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judgements: - a) Palava Dwellers…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…(SC) 1382 (v) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharsinghji P. Jadera 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Salay 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 It is thus submitted that ld.AO has interpreted a dumb document having no legal validity as per his suitability and addition based on this paper deserves to be deleted more particularly when the paper itself contained errors and addition is made merely and solely on the basis of confession without any corroborative evidence. Moreover the said conf…

Smt. Rachna Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-28(4), Kolkata

ITA 404/KOL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

Section 68

…on record any evidence to prove that the transactions entered by the assessee which are otherwise supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court way back in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. 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 ITO might be observed that the notoriety for smuggling food grains and other commodities to Bengal by country boats acquired by 'S' and t…

Rakesh Vaid, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 62(2), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal, ITA no

ITA 7821/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year: 2010-11]

Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151 (SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT ii) 26 ITR 736 (SC) Dhirajlal girdharilal v CIT, Bombay iii) 26 ITR 775 (SC) Dhakeshwari Cooton Mills Ltd v CIT iv) 37 ITR 288 (SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT The assessee has submitted a note on Moreover, even applying the rule of consistency, 3 “Presumptive” Taxation Scheme which are disallowance made is untenable. It is submitted that, essentially the provisions of Section 44AD once immediately preceding assessment years namely and 44AE. These sections are not…

Atish Singla, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-43(7), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1185/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC” : DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.1185/Del./2021 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Mr. Atish Singla, The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 43 (7), 201, Rajdhani Enclave, Civic Centre, Pritampura, vs. Minto Road, New Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. PAN AVDPS8972K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri R.S. Singhvi, Advocate For Revenue : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 23.07.2021 of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Ap…

Kalaneedhi Jewellers LLP, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 311/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…which was duly accounted for in the books of account was against the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT-II vs. Amarjit Singh Bajwa (2013) 84 CCH 198 (P&H) • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) • ACIT vs. Roop Chand Tharani (2012) 66 DTR 104 (Chhattisgarh) • CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del ) • CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del ) • CIT vs. Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185 (P&H ) • CIT vs. Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills (2007) 295 ITR 111(P&H) • CIT Vs K.C…

Ssmt. Charu Aggarwal, Patiala vs. DCIT-CC, Patiala

In the result, appeals of both the assesses are allowed

ITA 310/CHANDI/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Mar 2022AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyanka Dhar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…which was duly accounted for in the books of account was against the facts and circumstances of the case. The reliance was placed on the following case laws: • CIT-II vs. Amarjit Singh Bajwa (2013) 84 CCH 198 (P&H) • Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) • Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC) • ACIT vs. Roop Chand Tharani (2012) 66 DTR 104 (Chhattisgarh) • CIT vs. Paradise Holidays (2010) 325 ITR 13 (Del ) • CIT vs. Smt. Poonam Rani (2010) 326 ITR 223 (Del ) • CIT vs. Om Overseas (2009) 315 ITR 185 (P&H ) • CIT vs. Ludhiana Steel Rolling Mills (2007) 295 ITR 111(P&H) • CIT Vs K.C…

Deepak Valji Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO - 28(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 259/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Bleshri Deepak Valji Karia V. Income Tax Officer – 28(1)(3) Flat No. 2501, B Wing Room No. 327 Maroj Palm Paradise Tower No. 6, 3Rd Floor Palm Beach Road, Sector 17 Vashi Railway Station Building Complex Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Sanpada, Navi Mumbai 400705 Pan: Ahfpk2679F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Department By Shri Sanjeev Kashyp

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Hariya
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…re than bare suspicion to support the assessment. 28 Shri Deepak Valji Karia Assessee for the above proposition relies on the following case law: - (i). Dhakeshwati Cotton Mills v. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii). Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii). ACIT v. Shailest Shah [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (iv). Pooja Bhatt v. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 4. In any case, in view of SEBI Report, the very basis got away. All such material / statements -/ information have no base / relevance. Most importantly, even SEBI found the information of the Investigation Wing untrue. Assessee for…

DCIT, CC- 8(4), Mumbai vs. Ashok R. Ruia (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6309/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Shailja Rai
Section 132

…e of MP, AIR 2002 SC 3206. 12.22 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 Laichand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [37 ITR 288 (SC)]. 12.23 In this context, further reference is made to judgment of Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [164 lTD I (Mum)'SB)], wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal observed as under:- "Ultimately the entire case of revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so c…

DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur vs. Smt. Jyoti Falor, Jaipur

ITA 150/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…Ld. A.O. is not justified on drawing adverse inference against the assessee on the basis of the price of the shares quoted in the stock exchange. The reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288, CIT vs. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR and it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the suspicion or presumption howsoever strong it may appear to be to true needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of Long Term Capital Gain.…

DCIT, C.C. -03, Jaipur vs. Shri Tejender Kumar Falor, Jaipur

ITA 149/JPR/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Feb 2022AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma (CA) and Shri R.K. Bhatra, (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi, (CIT D/R) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…Ld. A.O. is not justified on drawing adverse inference against the assessee on the basis of the price of the shares quoted in the stock exchange. The reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288, CIT vs. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. (1967) 63 ITR and it is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the suspicion or presumption howsoever strong it may appear to be to true needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in form of Long Term Capital Gain.…