Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

30 ITR 181Supreme Court of India1956#185 most cited

What is Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT authority for?

If the Assessing Officer or appellate authority does not rebut the facts stated in an affidavit, those facts are binding on the tax authorities.

396

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT · 30 ITR 181 · affidavit not rebutted · binding on AO · facts in affidavit · tax authorities bound by affidavit · statement in affidavit

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 69ASection 147Section 69Section 153C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bb(1)retraction of statementsection 158bbsection 131(1a)section 292cstatement under section 132(4)section 132(4a)panchnamasection 153c(1)loose paperssection 132(4)dumb documents

Judgments citing Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT

Pooja Marketing, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT- 31, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2596/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Us, The Core Issues To Be Decided Are As Under:-

Section 115BSection 263Section 58(4)

…s affidavit had not been controverted by the revenue before us and hence the contents stated thereon are taken to be correct and having evidentiary value in terms of the decision of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co vs CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC). Hence it could be safely concluded that the assessee had booked purchases of lottery tickets in its financial statements only in 14 M/s.Pooja Marketing respect of draws held within the end of the financial year ; sales are booked as and when invoices are raised ; unsold tickets are not taken back by the Government who is organising the lott…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1437/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14
Section 69

…n by providing confirmations giving the explanation, and giving statement on oath on several occasions When affidavit is filed and statement on oath is taken the contents are proved to be correct unless proved. In the case of Mehata Parikh & Co v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Page 298- 304 of PB III (Para 2 & last para at Page 303) wherein the revenue held that the alleged sums were from undisclosed sources, it was held that it was not enough without further scrutiny to dislodge position taken up by assessee which was supported by entries in cash books and affidavits put in by assessee. Therefore, treating a part…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1436/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13
Section 69

…n by providing confirmations giving the explanation, and giving statement on oath on several occasions When affidavit is filed and statement on oath is taken the contents are proved to be correct unless proved. In the case of Mehata Parikh & Co v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Page 298- 304 of PB III (Para 2 & last para at Page 303) wherein the revenue held that the alleged sums were from undisclosed sources, it was held that it was not enough without further scrutiny to dislodge position taken up by assessee which was supported by entries in cash books and affidavits put in by assessee. Therefore, treating a part…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1435/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 69

…n by providing confirmations giving the explanation, and giving statement on oath on several occasions When affidavit is filed and statement on oath is taken the contents are proved to be correct unless proved. In the case of Mehata Parikh & Co v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Page 298- 304 of PB III (Para 2 & last para at Page 303) wherein the revenue held that the alleged sums were from undisclosed sources, it was held that it was not enough without further scrutiny to dislodge position taken up by assessee which was supported by entries in cash books and affidavits put in by assessee. Therefore, treating a part…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1434/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10
Section 69

…n by providing confirmations giving the explanation, and giving statement on oath on several occasions When affidavit is filed and statement on oath is taken the contents are proved to be correct unless proved. In the case of Mehata Parikh & Co v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) Page 298- 304 of PB III (Para 2 & last para at Page 303) wherein the revenue held that the alleged sums were from undisclosed sources, it was held that it was not enough without further scrutiny to dislodge position taken up by assessee which was supported by entries in cash books and affidavits put in by assessee. Therefore, treating a part…

ACIT-25(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Hetali Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 421/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Acit-25(2), M/S Hetali Enterprises R. No. 508, C-10, 5Th Floor, Bhanu 6, Vithal Nagar Society, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, N.S. Road No.10, Juhu Scheme, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vile Parle (W), Vs. Bandra (E), Mumbai-400049 Mumbai-400051. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafh3954Q

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Parikh (AR)For Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Singh (DR)
Section 133(6)Section 68

…ons before the ld AO which had not been disputed. Once the averments made in the affidavit are not disputed or refuted, the same are to be construed as true and correct, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC). ITA No. 421 Mum 2018-M/s Hetali Enterprises 6. In view of our aforesaid observations and respectfully following the various judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we find no infirmity in the order of the ld CITA deleting the addition made towards unsecured loans u/s 68 of the Act and correspondingly allowing interest on such unsecured…

Smt. Shweta Goyal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/JPR/2020[2010-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Apr 2021AY 2010-12
For Appellant: Shri C. L. Yadav (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (ACIT) a
Section 143(3)Section 148

…is been held in a catena of cases that a document is to read as a whole. It is not open to the authorities to accept a particular content and to reject the other, to suit its purpose. 7. It was submitted that in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181, the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down that when none of the Authorities considered it necessary to cross examine the deponent with reference to the statement made in the affidavit, it was not open to the Revenue in the circumstances to challenge the correctness of the statement made by the deponent made by the deponent in the affidavit. In other wo…

Shri Surinder Singh, Ropar vs. ITO, W-2(2), Ropar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1299/CHANDI/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh06 Apr 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT
Section 2(14)(iii)

…on record which has been accepted by the CIT(A). In these peculiar facts, sustaining part addition on the grounds that the affidavit of Shri Jaimal Singh was not reliable it was submitted, is contrary to the position of law as laid down by the Apex Court in 30 ITR 181 (S.C) Mehta Parikh & Co v. CIT namely that part of the document is relied and part of it is ignored and is any way an irrelevant suspicion in the facts of the present case. 5. The ld. Sr.DR relies upon the impugned order. The submissions that both the Purchaser and Seller have appeared and accepted that sale materialized on the price as canvass…

Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1503/JPR/2018[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2021AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1503/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Cuke Shri Vishnu Prasad, D.C.I.T. Vs. Namdev Export, Circle-7, Opp.-Dhanopia Textiles, Sanganer, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aappp 9225 M Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By :Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 09/02/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 30/10/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12, Wherein The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Made By A.O. U/S 68 Alleging Cash Deposits In Bank Account As Undisclosed Income. 1.1 That, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs. 30,50,000/- Ignoring The Submission Of Assessee That The Said Amount Represented Sale Consideration Received By Assessee For Sale Of Land.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt. Rooni Paul(Addl.CIT)
Section 68

…if the creditor fails to satisfy as to how he had actually received the said amount and happened to keep it in the bank, the said amount cannot be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.” In the case of Mehta Parika and Co. Vs CIT Bombay 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held: Held, (i) that applying the true principles as to interference with findings of fact of the Tribunal, the Court was under the circumstances entitled to consider whether the finding that Rs. 30,000 represented undisclosed profits was correct; (ii) as the cash book of the appellants was accepted, and…

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…s of the same cannot be relied and therefore, Mukesh Ruia has filed his retraction before conducting officer and the same was also submitted before Ld. Assessing Officer. We rely on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (30 ITR 181), wherein it has been held that retraction statements made by deponents in their affidavits are final unless AO has examined the deponents after the retraction. It is not uncommon that such statements are recorded under inducement, promise, and persuasion under exceptional circumstances and in an atmosphere of high pressure liable to cause nervous…

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

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…s of the same cannot be relied and therefore, Mukesh Ruia has filed his retraction before conducting officer and the same was also submitted before Ld. Assessing Officer. We rely on the decision of Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (30 ITR 181), wherein it has been held that retraction statements made by deponents in their affidavits are final unless AO has examined the deponents after the retraction. It is not uncommon that such statements are recorded under inducement, promise, and persuasion under exceptional circumstances and in an atmosphere of high pressure liable to cause nervous…

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sur Gems, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2078/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…e relied to make addition as the same is against the principle of natural justice. M/s. Sur Gems In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: Prakash Chandra Nahta v/s Union of India 247 ITR 274 (S.C.) Mehta Parikh & Co. v/s CIT 30 ITR 181 {S.C) M/s R.W. Promotions Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT (Bom) ITA NO. 1489 of 2013 dated 13/7/2015 18. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected and no cross examination was allowed and therefore no addition or disallowance can be made as has been held in the case of Fancy Wear vs. ITO 194 TTJ 125 Mumbai,…

Sur Gems, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1822/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri N.R. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep Raj, CIT D.R
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 271

…e relied to make addition as the same is against the principle of natural justice. M/s. Sur Gems In defence of his arguments the Ld. A.R. relied on the following decisions: Prakash Chandra Nahta v/s Union of India 247 ITR 274 (S.C.) Mehta Parikh & Co. v/s CIT 30 ITR 181 {S.C) M/s R.W. Promotions Pvt. Ltd. v/s ACIT (Bom) ITA NO. 1489 of 2013 dated 13/7/2015 18. The Ld. A.R. also submitted that since the books of accounts of the assessee were not rejected and no cross examination was allowed and therefore no addition or disallowance can be made as has been held in the case of Fancy Wear vs. ITO 194 TTJ 125 Mumbai,…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…se where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the income tax authorities. Reliance is placed on the following cases: Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181(SC); ITO Vs Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (JP); Paras Cotton Company Vs CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD); CIT Vs Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212 (Raj) 7. Finding of learned CIT(A) in his order confirming the addition made by AO The learned CIT has mentioned that “at the appellant premises certain loose documents which contained incr…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…se where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the income tax authorities. Reliance is placed on the following cases: Mehta Parikh & Co. 30 ITR 181(SC); ITO Vs Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (JP); Paras Cotton Company Vs CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD); CIT Vs Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212 (Raj) 7. Finding of learned CIT(A) in his order confirming the addition made by AO The learned CIT has mentioned that “at the appellant premises certain loose documents which contained incr…

The DCIT(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Shukan Builders, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1697/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…able in the present case as the facts are different. In GlasslineEquipments vs. CIT 253 ITR 454(Guj) the issue is regarding part acceptance of part of the affidavit by the CIT(A) which is not the issue in the present case. Further in Mehta Parikh & Co vs. CIT 30 ITR 181(SC), the issue was regarding entries in the cash books which is not the issue in the present case. Further, in Krishan Textiles vs. CIT AY: 2010-11 310 ITR 227(Guj), the issue was regarding cross-tallying the accounts of the appellant & that of a third party which is not issue in the present case. In the present case the information has been sent…

Shukan Builders, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1518/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri S. N. Soparkar with SmtFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha CIT DR with Shri Dileep Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…able in the present case as the facts are different. In GlasslineEquipments vs. CIT 253 ITR 454(Guj) the issue is regarding part acceptance of part of the affidavit by the CIT(A) which is not the issue in the present case. Further in Mehta Parikh & Co vs. CIT 30 ITR 181(SC), the issue was regarding entries in the cash books which is not the issue in the present case. Further, in Krishan Textiles vs. CIT AY: 2010-11 310 ITR 227(Guj), the issue was regarding cross-tallying the accounts of the appellant & that of a third party which is not issue in the present case. In the present case the information has been sent…

Mrs. Renu Tikamdas Tharani, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It)-4(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2333/MUM/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2020AY 2006-07
Section 127Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…. This affidavit and even the earlier affidavit categorically stated that the Assessment year: 2006-07 Page 35 of 55 source of deposit in HSBC account have no source in India. The affidavit has been rejected arbitrarily ignoring the Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC). 21. Learned Departmental Representative vehemently relies upon, and elaborately justifies, the orders of the authorities below. He submits that it is a case in which a specific information has come to in the possession of the Government of India, through official channels, and this information, amongst other things, categorically indicates t…

Shri Ashok Kumar Dusad, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/JPR/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Jul 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 148

…ction is not denied. Further, when assessee has filed the agreement and also the affidavit of Sh. Mangalram Kumawat, the same cannot be brushed aside without bringing any contrary material on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 has held that the rejection of affidavit filed by assessee is not justified unless the deponent has either been discredited in cross examination or has failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the present case neither Sh. Mangalram Kumawat was required to be produced nor the fact of construction was denied by the A…

Balwant Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Gurgaon

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1105/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

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

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 54Section 54F

…ma facie reasonable, cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary ground or on mere suspicion or on irrelevant grounds. The Ld. AR relied upon the following decisions: i) Chunnilal Tikaamchand Coal Ltd. vs. CIT 27 ITR 602 (Pat) ii) Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) iii) Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) iv) Sri Ram Tandon vs. CIT 42 ITR 689 (All) The Ld. AR submitted that in absence of maintenance of books of accounts no addition can be made u/s 68 of the Act on account of cash deposit in bank account. The Ld. AR further submitted that where the assessee is neither required by law nor…