Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

113 ITD 377Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2008#1170 most cited

What is Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT authority for?

The assessee must explain the nature and source of any sum credited in their accounts, including bank statements, and mere book entries or banking channels without financial capacity are insufficient to prove genuineness under Section 68. The case also holds that wrong quoting of a section is not fatal to proceedings, emphasizing substance over form.

97

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT · Section 68 · Section 69A · cash credits · unexplained money · assessee's onus of proof · genuineness of transactions · bank statements as books · wrong section quoted not fatal · substance over form · financial capacity · Special Bench ITAT

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Manoj Aggarwal v. DCIT

Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Burdwan

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is, allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1920/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1920/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2008-2009) Sri Santanu Chatterjee, Vs. Ito Ward-1(2), Burdwan C/O Benu Radio Product, Aayakar Bhawan, Court Baidyapur More, Opp.Uti Bank Compound, Burdwan Po-Kalna, Dist-Burdwan- 713101 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahhpc 8020 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suvo Chakraborty, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-2009, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan, In Appeal No.365/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd-1(2)/Bwn/2010-11, Dated 26.07.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.10.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case, Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 17.06.2008 Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,04,640/- . Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(2) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Undisclosed Income U/S.69 At Rs.11,04,790/-. During The Assessment Proceedings, It Had Come To The Notice Of The Ao That The Assessee Had 2 Sri Santanu Chatterjee Made Cash Deposit Of Rs.11,04,790/- In Axis Bank Kalana Bearing Account

For Appellant: Shri Suvo Chakraborty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

…n or the peak credit has no application in the facts of the instant case. The other cited decisions are rendered on their facts, and in fact in ratio endorse the Revenue's case. 7. In the result, the assessee's appeal is dismissed. ii) Manoj Aggarwal, [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Delhi)(SB) :- 26. The argument advanced on behalf of the assessee before us was that the assessee was not maintaining any books of account and the deposits were found only in the assessee's bank statement which cannot be considered as the books of account of the assessee and, therefore, section 68 was not applicable. Our attention was drawn to…

Addl CIT RG 24(2), Mumbai vs. Saraswati Developers, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 8337/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 8337/Mum/2010 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07) Dy. Cit-24(2), Saraswati Developers Room No. 601, 6Th Floor, 54/55, Rani Sati Marg, बनाम/ Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Malad (E), Mumbai-400 097 Bandra-Kurla Complex, Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofs 5105 N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Kailash Gaikwad ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Viraj Shah

For Appellant: Shri Kailash GaikwadFor Respondent: Shri Viraj Shah
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…ITR 807 (SC) (refer Ground 3 of the Appeal), the assessee’s case, relying on CIT vs. Nangalia Fabrics (P.) Ltd. [2013] 40 taxmann.com 206 (Guj); Amitabh Construction (P.) Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT [2012] 20 taxmann.com 385 (Jhark); Manoj Aggarwal vs. Dy. CIT [2008] 113 ITD 377 (Del) (SB); ACIT vs. Lakhi Games Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2010 TIOL 272 (Trib)(Mum) was based principally on the proposition that the credits on account of trade transactions, as purchases, could not be brought to tax as unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act. This is particularly so as the purchases had not been doubted by the A.O., which are at a total o…