Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

…d be made. The conclusions drawn by Ld. AO were based merely on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. The suspicion howsoever strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as per ratio of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 288). The entire case of the revenue rested on the presumption that the assessee ploughed back its own unaccounted money in the form of bogus capital gains. However, this suspicion needs to be corroborated with cogent evidences which was not done and therefore, the action of Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. 4.5 Finally, it was submitted that s…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

…d be made. The conclusions drawn by Ld. AO were based merely on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. The suspicion howsoever strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as per ratio of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 288). The entire case of the revenue rested on the presumption that the assessee ploughed back its own unaccounted money in the form of bogus capital gains. However, this suspicion needs to be corroborated with cogent evidences which was not done and therefore, the action of Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. 4.5 Finally, it was submitted that s…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

…d be made. The conclusions drawn by Ld. AO were based merely on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. The suspicion howsoever strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as per ratio of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 288). The entire case of the revenue rested on the presumption that the assessee ploughed back its own unaccounted money in the form of bogus capital gains. However, this suspicion needs to be corroborated with cogent evidences which was not done and therefore, the action of Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. 4.5 Finally, it was submitted that s…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

…d be made. The conclusions drawn by Ld. AO were based merely on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. The suspicion howsoever strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as per ratio of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 288). The entire case of the revenue rested on the presumption that the assessee ploughed back its own unaccounted money in the form of bogus capital gains. However, this suspicion needs to be corroborated with cogent evidences which was not done and therefore, the action of Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. 4.5 Finally, it was submitted that s…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

…d be made. The conclusions drawn by Ld. AO were based merely on suspicion, surmises and hearsay. The suspicion howsoever strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as per ratio of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 288). The entire case of the revenue rested on the presumption that the assessee ploughed back its own unaccounted money in the form of bogus capital gains. However, this suspicion needs to be corroborated with cogent evidences which was not done and therefore, the action of Ld. AO could not be sustained under law. 4.5 Finally, it was submitted that s…

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

…placed and unsubstantiated. 9.12 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)]. Raising of presumption itself, does not amount to proof. Presumption however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Reliance is placed on the decisions of Pooja Bhatt 66 TTJ (Mum) 817& D. M. Kamani (HUF) 65 TTJ (Pat) 504. It is well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in more than one decision that courts have to be watchful and avoid…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

…tate of MP, AIR 2002 SC 206. 17.2 Itis 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 (SQ)]. 17.3 In this context, further reference be made to judgment of Hon'ble Special Bench of Mumbai Tribunal in the case of GTC Industries Ltd. v. ACIT [164 ITD I (Mum)(SB)j, 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 cal…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

…he case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. d. Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd.(220 Taxman122) held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not possible to record any finding of fact, As a matter of fa…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

…he case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 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. d. Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd.(220 Taxman122) held that on the basis of a suspicion howsoever strong it is not possible to record any finding of fact, As a matter of fa…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

…nce no addition can be made on presumptions. Dheeraj Lal Girdhari Lal vs. CIT - (1954) 26ITR 736 (SC), Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT - (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Md. Sheikh vs. CIT- (1959) 37ITR 151 (SC), Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). The Respondent Assessee further submits that undisputedly in the present case the Assessment order was passed without providing the Assessee a copy of the information relied on by the AO which was gathered at the back of the Assessee and without granting an opportunity to cross examine the parties whose statements were relied upon by the AO…