Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Nikhil Mohine, Parasia vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jabalpur

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

…rising in view of the certain decisions. The law as applicable on the first day of the assessment year would apply for any assessment year, unless provided otherwise, either expressly or by necessary implication (Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC)). In the instant case, what would be more express; the Explanation/s itself providing, with a view to remove doubts, of the stated position to have been always the case, so that at no point of time, i.e., since the inception of sections 43B and 36(1)(va), has the sum referred to in section 2(24)(x) been regarded as subject to the former and,…

Nikhil Mohine, Chhindwara vs. DCIT, CPC, Benguluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeals are allowed

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora, Hon'Ble

…rising in view of the certain decisions. The law as applicable on the first day of the assessment year would apply for any assessment year, unless provided otherwise, either expressly or by necessary implication (Reliance Jute & Industries Ltd. vs. CIT [1979] 120 ITR 921 (SC)). In the instant case, what would be more express; the Explanation/s itself providing, with a view to remove doubts, of the stated position to have been always the case, so that at no point of time, i.e., since the inception of sections 43B and 36(1)(va), has the sum referred to in section 2(24)(x) been regarded as subject to the former and,…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 5/Rpr/2020) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17)

…er are relevant to the facts in question. (a) ACIT Vs M/s Balajee Structurals (1) Pvt Ltd (supra), the jurisdictional Bench Hon’ble ITAT; (b) ACIT vs. M/s Super Iron & Steel Pvt Ltd, ITA No. 139 to 141/BLPR/2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estate P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770: (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant…

D.C.I.T. Central Cricle, Raipur vs. Mahamaya Steel Industries Ltd, Raipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri N. K. Choudhryआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 62/Rpr/2018) ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14)

…are relevant to the facts in question. (a) ACIT vs. M/s Balajee Structurals (I) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the jurisdictional Bench Hon’ble ITAT; (b) ACIT vs M/s Super Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd., ITA No.139 to 141/BLPR2010; (c) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 288; (d) Income Tax Officer vs. W.D. Estae P. Ltd. (1993) 46 TTJ (Bom) 143 : 45 ITD 473; (e) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Discovery Estates Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 356 ITR 159 (Delhi); (f) Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni (HUF) vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 83 TTJ (Jd) 770 : (2004) 4 SOT 680 (Jd); (g) Bansal Strips (P) Ltd & Ors. vs. Assistant…

Darshan Kumar Pahwa, Indore vs. DCIT Circle5(1), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Manish Govind Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. I T O 2(1), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Govind Harinarayan Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. I T O 2(1), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Sapan Shah, Indore vs. ACIT-4(I), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Prayank Jain, Indore vs. ACIT5(1), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Shiv Narayan Sharma, Indore vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…ent recorded by the Ld. AO in the course of assessment proceedings, vide answer to question no. 5 and 6. [AO Page 07-08] 14. Above submission of the assessee is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of LalchandBhagatAmbica Ram [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) - Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 -………………………………Whether, therefore, it was clear that Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or fi…

Sarita Bagdi, Indore vs. The ITO Ward-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2011-12

…the buyer and remained there during the period of holding, which signifies the genuineness of the transaction. Reliance was placed on the decision reported in Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), CIT v. East Coast Commercial Co. Ltd. [1967] 63 ITR 449 (SC) and Anil Tibrewalav. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum) to support that suspicion even strong enough cannot take the character of evidence. • Himani M. Vakilv. DIT [IT Appeal No. 3106] (ITAT Ahd.) : In this case, it was observed that the assessee had furnished complete details before the A.…

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam vs. Hirapanna Jewellers, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objection of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.253/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) Asst.Commissioner Of Vs. M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Income Tax, D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Central Circle-1 Commercial Complex, Visakhapatnam Dwaraka Nagar Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.02/Viz/2021 (Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020) (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18) M/S Hirapanna Jewellers Vs. Asst.Commissioner Of D.No.48-19-5, Opp:Apsrtc Income Tax, Commercial Complex, Dwaraka Nagar Central Circle-1 Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaifh2606M]

…ncome 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 13 I.T.A. No.253/Viz/2020 and CO No.02/Viz/2021, A.Y.2017-1…

Shri Nilesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4(2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…the following judicial decisions wherein Hon’ble Courts have held that order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is bad in law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters wer…

Pritesh Jain HUF, Indore vs. ITO 4 (2), Indore

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

…the following judicial decisions wherein Hon’ble Courts have held that order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is bad in law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters wer…