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 367,154 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

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. Aura Jewels, Bangalore

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 684/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Years : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tata Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

…has declared the cash sales as its income in the profit and loss account. Hence it is not a case of cash credits, which were not shown as income, in order to attract the provisions of sec.68 of the Act. 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…

Om Vinyls Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3549/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manish Ajudiya - CIT DR
Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 68

…dition ought to have been made on account of cash deposited during demonetisation period out of accounted cash which is treated as unexplained. In this regard, assessee placed reliance on the following judgements: i. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) ii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 56 (ALL.) (HC) iii. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [2020] 115 taxmann.com 342 (Delhi - Trib.) iv. ACIT vs. Hirapanna Jewellers [2021] 128 taxmann.com 291 (Visakhapatnam-Trib.) v. ACIT v. Ramlal Jewellers (P.) Ltd. [2023] 154 taxmann.com 584 (Mumbai - Trib vi. Balwinder Kumar vs. ITO [2023] 151 t…

Jatin Garg, Chandigarh vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1019/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh12 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.N. Singla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR
Section 132(1)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 69

…rtly inadmissible material - Whether matter was to be remanded to High Court for directing Tribunal to state a case and refer to question as to whether finding of Tribunal was not vitiated by reason of Its having relied upon sold material - Held, yes" [19S9] 37 ITR 288(SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax CRUX: - "When a court of fact arrives at Its decision by considering material which is irrelevant to the enquiry, or acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, where it is Impossible to say to what extent the rnind of the court was affected by the ir…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -1(2), Nagpur vs. Vidarbha Infotech Private Limited, Nagpur

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Kapil HiraniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 44ASection 69C

…h transaction has to be independently inquired into. Suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the character of evidence. For this proposition assessee relies on 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 Tibrewala v. ITO [2004] 1 SOT 90 (Mum); CIT v. Daulatram Rawatmull [1964] 53 ITR 574 (SC); Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC); Pr. CIT v. Ajay Surendrabhai Patel [2016] 69 taxmann.com 309 (Guj.).” 6. The learned CIT(A), considering the above submissions…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 879/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…vidence on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes.  Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that both ITO and ITAT arriving in their conclusions had indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or finding was perverse which could not be sustained and therefore Supreme Court was entitled to…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 878/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…vidence on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes.  Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that both ITO and ITAT arriving in their conclusions had indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or finding was perverse which could not be sustained and therefore Supreme Court was entitled to…

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 874/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…vidence on account of law, but in making assessment under section 23(3) of 1922 Act he is not entitled to make a pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all - Held, yes.  Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that both ITO and ITAT arriving in their conclusions had indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of facts which could not reasonably be entertained or finding was perverse which could not be sustained and therefore Supreme Court was entitled to…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur vs. Nathmal Rupchand Jain, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1295/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR
Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…702 iv) Smt. Charu Aggarwal vs. DCIT 96 ITR 66 v) DCIT vs. M.C. Hospital 142 taxmann.com 122 vi) DCIT vs. Roop Fashin 98 ITR 419 vii) Smt. Tripta Rani vs. ACIT 97 ITR 389 viii) J.M. Wire Industries vs. CIT 205 Taxman 134 ix) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) x) Lakshmi Rice Mills vs. CIT 97 ITR 258 xi) Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT 87 ITR 349 (SC) xii) PCIT vs. Hitesh Gandhi vide ITA No.18/2017, order dt 16.02.2017 20. Referring to the following decisions he submitted that the addition u/s 69A is unjustified where the cash deposit is treated as cash sales reflected in regular books of account as…

Jitendra Kumar Tahilramani, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward-2, Jaipur.

ITA 928/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR (Th. V.C.)
Section 143(3)Section 68

…taxation, there is no scope for making any addition under section 68 of the Act in respect of deposits made into the bank account”. 2.18. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 in which judgment is delivered in the background of promulgation of High Demonetization Bank Notes (Demonetization) Ordinance, 1946, with effect from January 12, 1946. The Hon’ble Apex Court laid down a ratio that accepting an explanation or books in part and rejecting the same for the remaining part is not justified. It is submitted that in the p…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2, Surat vs. Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 224/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…ied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the additions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC); (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) and (iii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). 13.6 The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee is entitled to receive cash after the demonetization as window period up to 31.12.2016 was allowed for deposit of cash. Even if it is held that assessee cannot receive cash against sales after demonetization, so far as the inco…

Shah Maganlal Gulabchand Choksi, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Surat

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 197/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member), SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 131Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…ied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court where the additions were deleted as they were made on basis of the surmises and conjecture: (i) Umacharan Shaw & Bros, vs. CIT, [1973] 37 ITR 271 (SC); (ii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) and (iii) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC). 13.6 The Ld. AR also submitted that assessee is entitled to receive cash after the demonetization as window period up to 31.12.2016 was allowed for deposit of cash. Even if it is held that assessee cannot receive cash against sales after demonetization, so far as the inco…

Sh. Gurmal Singh H No R-18 New Grain Market Near Jain Hospital, Jalandhar Byepass Road, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-3 Ludhiana, Punjab

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 209/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh08 Jan 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Is Aggrieved

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 132(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 253Section 40A(3)Section 69C

…has been held that where the cash deposited was out of the books of account & cash book and where such books had not been rejected u/s 145 of the Act, then part addition for cash deposits was not sustainable, namely: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) Section 143 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Assessment - Addition to income - Assessment year 1946-47 - Assessee carried on extensive business in grain as merchant and commission agent - Assessee maintained its books of account according to mercantile system and there were maintained in its cash books two accounts: one showing cash balances fro…

Asha Tewari, Maharajganj vs. ITO, 1(4), Maharajganj

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/ALLD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Partawal, Maharajganj, U.P. Maharajganj Pan:Adjpt8320L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Arvind Shukla, Advocate Revenue By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2024 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, On 18.03.2024 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Are As Under: - “1. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Which Actually Represented Receipts From Sale Of Petroleum Products Routed Through The Audited Books Of Accounts. 2. Because The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Sustaining Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- U/S 69A Without Appreciating That The Said Section Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Case As The Entries Of Bank Deposits Are Flowing Directly From The Audited Books Of Accounts. 3. Because The Addition Of Rs 21,55,000/- Has Been Made & Sustained Simply On Negative Presumptions, Conjectures & Surmises To The Entire Exclusion Of Facts On Record. 4. Because The Learned Authorities Below Have Failed To Appreciate That During Demonetization Petrol Pumps Were Exempted From Taking Old Sbn & Hence There Was Nothing Unusual Or Incorrect With All Entries Routed Properly Through Audited Books Of Accounts.” 1 A.Y. 2017-18 Asha Tewari

For Appellant: Sh. Arvind Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69Section 69A

…nt notification. Further, it was submitted that the ld. AO had ignored the cash book submitted on 26.09.2019 and detailed replies on the issue and acted against the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 and the ITAT, Kolkata in the case of CIT vs. Associated Transport (P.) Ltd., (1996) 84 taxman 146, which held that if an assessee maintained books of accounts and there was sufficient cash balance in his cash books and such balance was not challenged by the ld. AO, then there was no reason to treat the amount as income from undisclosed sources as…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d the heavy onus cast upon him and had not brought an iota of evidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d the heavy onus cast upon him and had not brought an iota of evidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…d the heavy onus cast upon him and had not brought an iota of evidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of…

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2531/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed information/evidence discharging the evidentiary burden (if any) on the Appellant and in the absence of any information/material to the contrary makes the impugned additions unsustainable vide Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) [14-05-1959] “……. Where, however, the fact-finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. In our decision in…

Rachna Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 29, New Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5418/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saubhagya Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ed information/evidence discharging the evidentiary burden (if any) on the Appellant and in the absence of any information/material to the contrary makes the impugned additions unsustainable vide Lalchand Bhagat AmbicaRam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) [14-05-1959] “……. Where, however, the fact-finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. In our decision in…

Income Tax Officer, Kolkata vs. Jkj Jewellers (Hcm), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as CO of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 420/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, West Vs. Kolkata-700007, Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aakfj7956Q Co No. 26/Kol/2024 (Arising In Ita No. 420/Kol/2024 For A.Y. 2017-18) Jkj Jewellers (Hcm) Income Tax Officer 1St Floor, 18, Hanspukur First 3, Govt. Place (West), Ground Lane, Burrabazar, Floor, Kolkata-700069, Vs. Kolkata-700007, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Kumar Biswas, DR
Section 143Section 68

…ng the A.Y. relevant to the assessment year under consideration. The ld. Counsel has also placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements on the proposition that addition u/s 69A of the Act cannot be made i.e.: Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); Lakshmi Rice Mills Vs. CIT (1974) 97 ITR 258 (PAT); DCIT Vs. M/s Karthik Construction Co. ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016. 10. After considering the facts as discussed above, we find the AO has failed to justify in applying section 69A to the case of the assessee when the assessee itself declared the cash sales in its return of income duly recorded in…

DCIT, Central Circle-01, New Delhi vs. Manuvel Mezhukanal, New Delhi

ITA 1550/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. Ina Market, New Delhi. Pan: Ablpv5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 31.01.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10504/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 27.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) By The Acit, Circle 53(1), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 271DSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 DCIT, Vs Manuvel Mezhukanal, Central Circle-01, 209-10, Mohan Singh Place, New Delhi. INA Market, New Delhi. PAN: ABLPV5671Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Parth Singhal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Krishna K. Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order dated 31.01.2…