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

Shri Nandkumar Ratanlal Kothari, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(1), Nagpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 431/NAG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur30 Jun 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri K.P. DewaniFor Respondent: Shri A.R. Ninawe
Section 143(3)

…A.O. has not been found to be incorrect or false. The contents of the affidavit have gone unrebutted and have to be taken as true and correct. Reliance for the same is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC). (P-32 - 35) [Vol. - I] The assessee had submitted agreement for purchase of property on 25/9/2006 which has been cancelled during the previous year under consideration. In terms of cancellation deed assessee had received refund of advance given at Rs. 20 lacs along with interest of Rs. 5,23,000/-. The agreement of purchase has not been foun…

ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata vs. M/S Blessing Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result we set aside the order of the Ld

ITA 271/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jun 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 271/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 I.T.O., Ward-5(3), Kolkata -Vs.- M/S. Blessings Commercial Pvt. Ltd. 228A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aaccb 1349 N] (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : Shri Goulen Hangshing, Cit, Dr. For The Respondent : Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.06.2017 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Vi, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”), Dt. 19/11/2013, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The „Act‟), Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. Facts In Brief:- The Assessee Is A Company & Is Engaged In The Business Of Finance & Investment. It Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011-12 On 22/09/2010, Declaring –Nil- Income. It Showed A Loss Of Rs.668/-. The Facts As Recorded By The Assessing Officer In The Assessment Order Are Extracted Below:- “Para 1.2.1 The Assessee Has Shown Receipt Of Under Mentioned Share Capital Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- & Share Premium Of Rs.188,10,00,000/- During The Asst. Year 2010-11. The Assessee Credited Rs.1,90,00,000/- In Total In Its Books Against The Above Receipts. The Assessee Claimed That The Detail Of Receipts Are As Under :-

For Appellant: Shri Goulen Hangshing, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate
Section 250

…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…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 68

….) " Oriental Wire Ind. Pvt. Ltd. (1981) 134 ITR 688 (Cal.) " C. Kant & Co. (1980) 126 ITR 63 (Cal.) 7 Sanjay Singh " M.A. Limiter Kutty (1992) 198 ITR 147 (Ker.) " RBN Naidu Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.) " Chunnilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1955) 30 ITR 181 (SC) " Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) " Sri Ram Tandon Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All.) " Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) " Ali Huesin Vs STO (1988) 68 STC 319 (Ori) " Ashok Electro Diamonds Vs Jt. CTO (1971) 28 STC 21 (Mad.) " EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All.) " Mahboob Singh Subhash…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4118/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ncome as the appellant is salaried employee. An affidavit filed by the appellant, statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4117/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ncome as the appellant is salaried employee. An affidavit filed by the appellant, statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we…

ITO, New Delhi vs. Vineet Gupta, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4116/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. O.P. Kant

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ncome as the appellant is salaried employee. An affidavit filed by the appellant, statements of the appellant without rebutting the contents thereof cannot be disregarded as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Company vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 and Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Krishnaveni Ammal 158 ITR 826. We therefore conclude that deposits represented trading receipts in the business of chemicals carried out by the appellant of Titanimum Dioxide. Accordingly such deposits, could not have been taxed under section 68 of the Act. In arriving at the above conclusion, we…

Disha N . Lalwani, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 23(2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6398/MUM/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri N.K. Pradhanassessment Year: 2003-04 Disha N. Lalwani, Income Tax Officer- J-301, Vardhaman Nagar 23(2)(2), बनाम/ Jn. Of R.P. Rd. & M.G. Rd. C-10-Pratyakshkar Vs. Mulund (W), Bhavan, 02Nd Floor, Mumbai-400080 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra, Mumbai-400007 ("नधा"रती/Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) P.A. No. Aaapl6056H

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ome-Tax, West Bengal II v. Durga Prasad More, (1971) 82 ITR 540, Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull, (1973) 87 ITR 349, Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow, (1955) 28 ITR 579 (H.L.), Mehta Parikh and Co. v. CIT, (1956) 30 ITR 181, Director of Income-Tax v. Bharat Diamond Bourse, (2003) 259 ITR 280 (SC), Lovely Exports P. Ltd. in (2008) 299 ITR 268 relied ; CIT v. Oasis Hospitalities Private Limited, (2011) 333 ITR 119 disapproved (Para 42) Conclusion : In the facts of the case, addition of Rs.1,18,50,000 made under section 68 of the Act as well as the consequential additi…

ITO, Rohtak vs. Sh. Ram Kishan, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07 Income Tax Officer, Sh. Ram Kishan S/O Sh. Hari Ward-3, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Singh, Vpo Dabodha Khurd Rohtak (Haryana) Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (Pan: Dbcpk7085P)

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 148

…remand report Dt. 23.12.2015 has admitted this fact and affidavit of the purchaser was also obtained by the AO. An affidavit is a valid piece of evidence as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Parikh and Co vs CIT reported at 30 ITR 181. The above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was followed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Sohan Lal Gupta vs CIT reported at 33 ITR 786. Thus, the source of deposits of Rs. 2975000/- stood proved and as such your good self is prayed to please delete the addition made by the AO. I have examined the facts of the case,…

M/S. Dilip & Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2718/CHNY/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jan 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2718/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(2)

…e properly considered by the lower authorities. Thus, according to him, the addition made had no legs to stand. Reliance was placed by the ld. Authorised Representative on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Co vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181. 7. Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the authorities below submitted that ld. Assessing Officer had accepted source of the gold jewellery in so far as assessee could bring in evidence at the time of search. According to him, what was rejected was only the claim of the assessee made subsequent to th…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3378/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 5613/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1842/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 21, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1097/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3021/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 3019/MUM/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 2986/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai vs. Layer Exports P. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 2985/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1930/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1929/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…

Layer Exports P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue and that of the assessee are decided as indicated above against each issue

ITA 1928/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri B. R. Baskaran, Am

Section 132

…documentary evidence or he should have been cross-examined to find out how far his assertions in the affidavit were correct." (Copy enclosed at pages 537- 542 of assessee‟s Paper Book). Further, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT, 30 ITR 181 (SC), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that rejection of an affidavit filed by an assessee was not justified unless the deponent had either been discredited in cross examination or had failed to produce other supporting evidence when called upon to do so. In the 45 & 13 other appeals instant case, however, the noting in seized documents corresponded to…