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

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…posits arising out of accounted cash sales as unexplained cash credits merely on the basis surmises & conjectures is fallacious and deserves to be deleted. xxvii. Reference in this connection is craved to the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) which is set in somewhat similar back drop in connection with treatment of the encashment of high denomination notes by Agson Global Pvt. Ltd Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 3741to 3746/Del/2019 (assessee) ITA No. 5264 to 5269/Del/2019 (Revenue) (Assessment Year: 2012-13 to 2017-18) the assessee therein on the promulgation of High Denomination Bank Notes…

Bina Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-08, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed and the stay application is dismissed

ITA 2349/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 153ASection 69A

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2349/DEL/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) A/w Stay Application No. 636/DEL/2019 Bina Aggarwal Vs. ACIT 2nd Floor, 19 Local Shopping Central circle-08 Complex, Near Pushpa New Delhi Bhawan, Madangir New Delhi PAN : ADBPA1417B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & sh. Himanshu Aggarwal, C.A Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Goyal, CIT,DR Date of Hearing 05.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 30.10.2019 ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is fi…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Delhi

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1914/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishiincome Tax Officer, Vs. Shri Deepak Chadha, Ward-49(4), Prop M/S. Real Services, New Delhi C-2/36, 2Nd Floor, Janakpuri, Delhi Pan: Aahpc8798E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 69C

…losure of the full consideration. /Is pointed out earlier, this cannot per se constitute the basis of the addition, though we must hasten to add that it can very well be a starting point for further investigation. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT: (1959) 37 ITR 288, the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicion and surmises or by taking note of the "notorious practice" prevailing in trade circles. It was observed as under: "Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with the Income- tax Officer we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling food…

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

ITA 3429/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 36. 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…

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

ITA 3428/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 36. 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…

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

ITA 3427/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 36. 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…

Shri. Mahendra B Mittal HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3426/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 36. 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…

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

ITA 3314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 supported by proper third party documents are collusive transactions. 36. 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…

Indo Office Solutions (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 3176/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi[Assessment Year: 2013-14]

Section 132Section 133Section 147Section 148

…w & Bros vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) wherein it is settled law that suspicion however strong it is cannot take place of the evidence. Further the Ld. AR relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288. 9. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 10. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1 is general in nature, hence it is dismissed. As regards Ground No. 2, the contentions of the Ld. AR that there is failure on part of issuance of statuto…

Nawal Kishore, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 47(4), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1705/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. ITO, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi PAN :AWUPK3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. ACIT, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAGPK1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.K. Gaur, CA Department by Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 29.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 06.09.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the respe…

Satish Kishore, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

ITA 1704/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K.N. Charyassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. Ito, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Awupk3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) & Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. Acit, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aagpk1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri R.K. Gaur, Ca Department By Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.Dr

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 43(5)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Satish Kishore, Vs. ITO, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Ward-47(2), Delhi New Delhi PAN :AWUPK3580F (Appellant) (Respondent) And Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Nawal Kishore, Vs. ACIT, 1397, Tilak Bazar, Circle-47(4), Delhi New Delhi PAN :AAGPK1458C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri R.K. Gaur, CA Department by Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of hearing 29.07.2019 Date of pronouncement 06.09.2019 ORDER PER O.P. KANT, A.M.: These appeals by the respe…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…CrT (1999) 70 ITD 62 (Chd.) h) 4.3 The judgments delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court 1D the case of Dhirajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd vs, CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); 11 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 Umacharan Shaw& Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) & Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) also applies to the facts and circumstances of the case because the adverse inference drawn by the AO was purely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and does not have sa…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(3)(1), Bangalore vs. Shri Satyendra Kumar Gututia, Bangalore

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

ITA 2036/BANG/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2010 – 11 Shri Satyendra Kumar Gutgutia, Block No. 304, 3Rd Floor, Acit Circle – 6 (3) (1), Oscar Orchard Apartment, Vs. Bangalore. Sahakar Nagar, Bengaluru - 560092 Pan: Adrpg8676J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B. Chattaraj, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.07.2019

For Appellant: Shri B. Chattaraj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. H. Sundar Rao, CIT (DR)

…te Limited is relied upon. The honourable apex court further upheld similar decision in the case of CIT vs Sriram Associated bearing (P) Ltd., (1984) 150 ITR (St) 77 SC. That apart, the honourable apex court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs C.I.T (37 ITR 288(SC)) held inter alia that there is no presumption of bad faith against an assesse unless there is sufficient material on record and establish and sustain such bad faith We shall not increase the volume of our submission by stating a plethora of other case where the honourable judicial pronouncements had clearly held that rejection of book results…

ACIT, Cir-4, Kolkata vs. M/S R. K. Commercial Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1330/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jun 2019AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1330/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2007-08)

For Appellant: Shri A. K. Nayak, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Khaitan, Advocate & Shri Sujoy Sen, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the Acquirer and Seller. It is an accepted fact that whenever share in the Stock Exchange are sold as off market transaction, it is sold at the intrinsic value of shares and that is what has happened in this case. In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288(SC), the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicion and surmise or by taking note of the notorious practices in trade circles. At Page-299 of the ITR, it was observed as follows: “Adverting to the various probabilities which weighed with ITO we may observe that the notoriety for smuggling foodgra…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…wsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) ii) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151(SC) iii) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) iv) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 796 vi) Jayadayal Poddar vs. Mst Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC 171 vii) CIT vs. K. Mahim Udma 242 ITR 133 (Ker) 39. It is therefore submitted that the addition made by the learned AO and sustainable by the learned CIT (A) in respect of unsecured loan received by the appellant is unsustainable in…

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
Section 10(38)Section 68

…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 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 country boats acquired b…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3455/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…llowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard, was placed on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the…

ITO 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aaa Technologies P.Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3454/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vipul JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem M
Section 143(3)Section 148

…llowance can be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjecture and reliance, in this regard, was placed on following decisions: (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v/s. CIT - [(1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC)] (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s. CIT - [(1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)] (iii) Bansidhar Onkarmall v/s. CIT - [(1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori)] (iv) ACIT v/s. Shailesh Shah - [(1997) 63 ITD 153 (Mum)] (v) Pooja Bhatt v/s. ACIT - [(2000) 73 ITD 205 (Mum)] 36. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that in its reply to remand contended that even the aspect of TDS was sufficiently dealt with by the Assessee, not only at the…

Pratap N. Rajgor, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals as well as the cross-objections are dismissed

ITA 5273/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiita No.5273/Mum/2018 A.Y: 2007-08

For Respondent: Shri Awungshi Gimsan &
Section 115JSection 131Section 131(1)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…an Son, Appeal (Civil) Nos. 13224 of 2008 & 6747 of 2012 b. Mumbai ITAT in the case of Maruti Impex 2016(5) TMI 104) c. Global Stock 4DTR 172, Mumbai d. Mumbai Bench K G Sharma 133 ITD 112 e. Apex curt in the case of K R Verghis 131 ITR 597 f. Lalchand Bhagat 37 ITR 288 (SC) Mangalam Drugs & Organics Ltd. g. Shiva Kami Co. 159 ITR 71 where their lordship disapproved the system of making additions in the assessment on mere suspicision and surmises. I have gone through the CIT Selam vs. S Khader Khan Son judicial decision wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given the following findings : "Section 133A of the…

ACIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Middle Earth Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross

ITA 5753/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha & Shri Ravish Sood, Assessment Year:-2011-12 Acit-13(3)(2), M/S Middle Earth Room No.229, 02Nd Floor, बनाम/ Enterprises, Aayakar Bhavan, 19/40, C-2, Seksaria Vs. M. K. Road, Industrial Estate, Off Mumbai-400020 S.V. Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400064 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aaqfm8445I

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148

…en received back, such addtion/disallowance is not permitted as held in the following cases:- (i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Vs. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) (ii) Umacharan Shaw & Bros. VS. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) (iii) Laichand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [199] 37 ITR 288 (SC) 6.19. The assessing officer has referred to but not quoted the statements denying transactions with the appellant by the impugned parties. It is also not mentioned whether such statements were provided to the appellant. The appellant has argued that the main reason behind the parties denying such transactions can be non-payment of VAT, howeve…