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 366,470 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

Sh. Suraj Prakash, Amrtitsar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 5(5), Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 638/ASR/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 638/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Sh. K. R. Jain (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(vi)

…ta Lal Devi, and Smt. Neelam (wife of Sh. Ashwani Kumar), had been furnished. The Assessing Officer (AO) was bound by these affidavits, i.e., unless he disproves them through cross examination, for which reliance was placed on Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC). The assessee, it was admitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Jain, on enquiry by the Bench, had been unable to adduce affidavit from the fourth co- owner, i.e., Sh. Satinder Kumar. The ld. Departmental Representative (DR), Sh. Charan Dass, would object, stating that the terms of the GPOA dated 21.5.2004, on the basis of which the a…

DCIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. M.L. Juyal & Co. (AOP), Dehradun

In the result appeal filed by the learned AO for assessment year 2009 – 10

ITA 4851/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaa N D Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Karan Kumra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri N. C. Upadhay, Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

…t been able to contradict or refute the contention of the affidavit filed by Shri SC Gupta and Shri ML Jpyal, which however in view of the assessee’s reliance in the honourable Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mehta Parikh & co V CIT reported at (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) ought to have been rebutted by the AO, and however in the absence of such an action by the AO, the contents of the affidavit of Shri S C Gupta retracting from his earlier statement cannot be disbelieved. Therefore, without unduly refuting and rebutting the contents of Sri Gupta’s affidavit and his fresh claim with any independent inquiries we…

M/S. Saraf Seasoning Udhyog, Churu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income, Jhunjhunu

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

ITA 775/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Suresh Ojha (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Karni Dan (JCIT)
Section 145Section 145(3)

…e, the AO has not called for the cross examination of the assessee on the contents of the affidavit then the affidavit is accepted. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mehta Parik and Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee has submitted 4 M/s Saraf Seasoning Udhyog vs. ACIT that the assessee has explained the reasons for the decline in the G.P. rate as increase of cost of raw material being timber. The turnover of the assessee is substantially higher than the earlier year hence, the marginal declined in the G.P. rate cannot be…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Akhil Kumar Sureka, New Delhi

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

ITA 5572/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Vs. Akhil Kumar Sureka, Central Circle-3, 602, Chiranjiv Tower, Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., 43, Nehru Place, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Abkps2301R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Shri Ashish Chadha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Raghunath, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.01.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 24Th August, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-23, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under:- “1. The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Correct In Law & On Facts. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,00,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Unexplained Income U/S 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Any/All The Grounds Of Appeal Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr.DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 69A

…ions were made and appeals filed by the Revenue has been dismissed. He accordingly submitted that this being a covered matter, the ground raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 10.1 He also relied on the following decisions:- i) Mehta Parikh v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181 (SC); ii) CIT v. Vatika Township Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 1329/2010 dated 10.09.2010 – Del HC); iii) Glass Lines Equipments Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2002] 253 ITR 454 (Guj); iv) Hissaria Brothers v. DCIT 126 TTJ 391 (ITAT, Jodhpur) v) ITAT Jaipur in the case of Om Prakash Agarwal v. ACIT in ITA Nos. 721 to 726/JP/2015 dated 23.011.2016 (ITAT, Jodhpur); vi) ITA…

Mangat Singh S/O Sh. Karam Singh, Mohali vs. ITO, W-6(4), Mohali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 246/CHANDI/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Jan 2019AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan SinghFor Respondent: Shri Paresh Johri, CIT-DR
Section 39

…examine the assessee on the point of Affidavit filed by the Assessee and her sister, nor rebutted the content of the Affidavit, which remain uncontroverted, must inverbally be accepted as true and reliable as held in case of Mehta Parikh & Co. V7s CIT (1956) 30 ITR 186, 187(S.C) and Kanshna V7s CIT (All) 1 42 ITR 61 8 . 8. On a perusal of the record, it is seen that admittedly the tax authorities have taken the easy route by insisting upon the taxpayer to produce the parties on whom he admittedly had no control. The taxpayer after having sold his land has no hold to cause the reluctant purchaser to appear. In th…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 715/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…e filed before Id. AO on 23.03.2015, she neither cross-examined any of the deponents nor brought any positive evidence to disprove the averments made in the affidavits. It is settled law as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) that contents of affidavits cannot be rejected without cross-examining the deponents. Obviously, Id. AO has consciously not cross-examined the deponents to avoid averments made in affidavits becoming final & undisputed. I have carefully considered the statements of the depositors, their affidavits and clarifications as furnished by the assess…

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3, Surat vs. M/S. Happy Home Corporation, Surat

ITA 1991/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Surat15 Jan 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Smita Nair, Sr.DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68Section 80I

…e filed before Id. AO on 23.03.2015, she neither cross-examined any of the deponents nor brought any positive evidence to disprove the averments made in the affidavits. It is settled law as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh Vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) that contents of affidavits cannot be rejected without cross-examining the deponents. Obviously, Id. AO has consciously not cross-examined the deponents to avoid averments made in affidavits becoming final & undisputed. I have carefully considered the statements of the depositors, their affidavits and clarifications as furnished by the assess…

Sri Ambsa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2744/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…tion that the Affidavits filed by Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode and Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode is a valid piece of evidence and cannot be ignored, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co., (30 ITR 181) (SC). According to the learned AR, the assessee was running the business of the Wine Store and not Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode as stated in the earlier statement dated 28.08.2014 of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode. In this regard, it was further contended that the assessee has filed the returns of income for the aforesaid three Assessment Years decla…

Sri Ambasa R Habib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2743/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…tion that the Affidavits filed by Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode and Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode is a valid piece of evidence and cannot be ignored, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co., (30 ITR 181) (SC). According to the learned AR, the assessee was running the business of the Wine Store and not Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode as stated in the earlier statement dated 28.08.2014 of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode. In this regard, it was further contended that the assessee has filed the returns of income for the aforesaid three Assessment Years decla…

Sri Ambasa R Hsbib, Hubli vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), Hubli

In the result, the assessee’s appeals for assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14

ITA 2742/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. Narendra Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. H. L. Soumya Achar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…tion that the Affidavits filed by Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode and Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode is a valid piece of evidence and cannot be ignored, the learned AR placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co., (30 ITR 181) (SC). According to the learned AR, the assessee was running the business of the Wine Store and not Shri. Kashinath Khemsa Khode as stated in the earlier statement dated 28.08.2014 of Shri. Anil Kashinath Khode. In this regard, it was further contended that the assessee has filed the returns of income for the aforesaid three Assessment Years decla…

ITO, WD-5(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 282/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Sept 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No. 39/Kol/2018 (Arising Out Of I.T.A No. 282/Kol/2014) Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S Sayaji Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-5(2), Kolkata [Pan: Aagcs 0147 M] (Cross Objector) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Md. Usman, CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri M. Kataruka, Advocate
Section 143(3)

…the relevant law could have come to the determination under appeal. In those circumstances, too, the court must intervene." Reference was also made to the observations of Bhagwati, J. (speaking for the majority) in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181(SC), which are as under:- "It follows, therefore, that facts proved or admitted may provide evidence to support further conclusions to be deduced from them, which conclusions may themselves be conclusions of fact and such inferences from facts proved or admitted could be matters of law. The court would be entitled to intervene if it appears that t…

Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur vs. M/S Austee Hydro Power & Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 837/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

…the Learned A O did not gone through for further verification of affidavit". Hence failed to appreciate the record and its evidence. It is also supported by case laws — howkchand Balabux vs. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 465 (Assam)AND Mehta Parekh & Co. vs. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). G That the Ld A.O. is not justified by disallowing expenses of Rs. 87,650/-treating it as donation. It was considered Rs. 87,650/- instead actual amount was Rs. 85,550/-. Since the payment was of the nature of 5 & A.Y.2012-13 Advertisement/Souvenir. Payments made to Nalwari Fair ( Bilaspur &, S,nagar) to Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur & Man…

M/S Austees Hydro Power & Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly

ITA 729/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Aug 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptam/S Austees Hydro Power & Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Construction Company (P) Ltd., Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, (Hp). Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M & The Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S Austees Hydro Power & Bilaspur Distt. Bilaspur Construction Company (P) Ltd., (Hp). Vpo Bahot Kasol, Tehsil Sadar, Distt Bilaspur (Hp), Through Its Authorised Signatory Pan: Aafca8697M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT(DR)

…the Learned A O did not gone through for further verification of affidavit". Hence failed to appreciate the record and its evidence. It is also supported by case laws — howkchand Balabux vs. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 465 (Assam)AND Mehta Parekh & Co. vs. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC). G That the Ld A.O. is not justified by disallowing expenses of Rs. 87,650/-treating it as donation. It was considered Rs. 87,650/- instead actual amount was Rs. 85,550/-. Since the payment was of the nature of 5 & A.Y.2012-13 Advertisement/Souvenir. Payments made to Nalwari Fair ( Bilaspur &, S,nagar) to Deputy Commissioner Bilaspur & Man…

Achla Dhawan vs. Income Tax Officer

The appeal of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2165/DEL/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Aug 2018AY 2000-2001

Bench: Shri S. K. Yadav & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…persistence denials cannot be a substitute for proof. Presumptuous allegations without corroborative material do not constitute admissible evidence. Please refer Lai Chand Bhagat Amibika Prasad Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) in support of fhis dicfum. Also there is the direct decision on the point of the Delhi High Court in Ashok Kumar Sen vs. ITO (1981) 132 ITR 707. 9. The credit entries in the Appellant’s bank account on account of gift could not ipso facto be ITA. 2165 (Del) of 2008. Smt. Achla Dhawan, Meerut. 19 construed as an accommodation entry without pr…

Mohammad Ayaz, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 26(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am] I.T.A. No. 45/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Mohammed Ayaz...................................………………………………………....................Appellant J-30, Fatehpur Village Road, Garden Reach, Kolkata – 700 024. [Pan: Acxpa 6296 P] Income Tax Officer Kolkata...................…………………………………………….............Respondent Ward No. 26(3), Kolkata. Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 28, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : June 22, 2018 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 7, Kolkata Dated 25.05.2017 & The Solitary Issue Involved Therein Relates To The Addition Of Rs. 28,55,000/- Made By The Ao Under Section 68 By Treating The Gifts Received By The Assessee As Unexplained Cash Credit Which Is Sustained By The Ld. Cit(A) To The Extent Of Rs. 13,90,000/-.

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ssessment Year: 2012-13 Mr. Mohammed Ayaz the said donors, the authorities below were not justified in not accepting their gifts. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Mehta Parikh & Co. vs CIT 30 ITR 181 as well as the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Taradevi Goenka vs CIT 122 ITR 14. 6. The learned DR, on the other hand, strongly supported the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming partly the addition made by the AO under section 68 by treating the relevant gifts as unexplained cash credit. He contended that only a nom…

Ram Bharose Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for Statistical purposes as indicated above

ITA 1066/JPR/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2018AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Seema Meena, JCIT - DR
Section 143(3)Section 156Section 234B

…contrary evidence brought on record to controvert the averments made in affidavit, the facts narrated therein were binding upon the authorities below. The ld. CIT (A) however, conveniently ignored this legal & factual position. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek & Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC) followed by Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches of ITAT also in the cases of ITO v. Dr. Tejgopal Bhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp) Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD). 5. Supporting Case Laws: There are several decisions in support, some of them are hereunder: 5.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land & Acquisition v/s Mst.…

Shri Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward1(3)(5), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2423/AHD/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148

…of Rs.88,41,208/- made on account of these parties needs to be deleted. Sudeep Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO-1(3) (5) Surat/I.T.A. No.2423/Ahd/2016/A.Y.08-09 Page 29 of 38 The ld.Counsel further relied in the case of Mehta Parikh and 37. Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein it was held that cash books of the assessee having been accepted and the deponent not having been examined, there was no justification in not accepting the explanation of the assessee in part. Similarly, the ld.Counsel also placed reliance in the case of Shanti Vijay Jewels Ltd. vs. DCIT in ITA No.1045/Mum/2016 for assessment year 201…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2783/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2782/DEL/2011[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…

Shri Sandeep Bindra, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result these grounds of appeal of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2651/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 May 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Saxena, AdvFor Respondent: Shri SS Rana, CIT DR
Section 145(3)Section 43B

…vit has been filed by the appellant before the AO dated 19/08/2008 confirming the above facts but the same has not been considered and controverted by the AO which is in contravention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parekh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC).  There is no corroborative evidence to support the surrender of Rs. 2 crores neither found at the time of search nor brought on record by the department during the course of assessment.  Before the CIT(A) detailed submission and also the admissibility and the credibility of the seized documents has been filed which are placed at pg 811-814…