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. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 497/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आंकड़ुठरधारी आइटीएए सं.र@ITA Nos.493, 495 to 498, 500/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष@Assessment Years : 2014-15 to 2016-17, 2018-19 to 2020-21 Mahendra Kumar Goyal चुके Vs. ACIT/DCIT Ward No. 2, Shahpura Road Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Central Circle-03, Jaipur लेखा संख्याल्लेय सं.जीआइआर सं.पान@PAN/GIR No.: ACFPG0306G अपीलार्थी@Appellant प्रत्यार्थी@Respondent निर्धारीती की आर से@ Assessee by : Shri P. C. Parwal, CA राजस्व की आर से@ R

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…e money that has been taken by him from the 106 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal assessee [ page 159 of the paper book filed]. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [ 30 ITR 181 (SC) ] wherein the Apex Court held that the affidavits and the entries as made in the account books not having been controverted, [ here in the case entries confirmed in the affidavit ] the department could not challenge its nature the other content mentioned in that affidavit of having not been paid the interest to the assessee cannot be disput…

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 496/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…e money that has been taken by him from the 106 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal assessee [ page 159 of the paper book filed]. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [ 30 ITR 181 (SC) ] wherein the Apex Court held that the affidavits and the entries as made in the account books not having been controverted, [ here in the case entries confirmed in the affidavit ] the department could not challenge its nature the other content mentioned in that affidavit of having not been paid the interest to the assessee cannot be disput…

Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal, Sikar vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur

In the result of the appeal of the assessee are disposed off as under

ITA 493/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69

…e money that has been taken by him from the 106 ITA Nos. 493. 495 to 498/JP/2025 Sh. Mahendra Kumar Goyal assessee [ page 159 of the paper book filed]. Thus, respectfully following the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [ 30 ITR 181 (SC) ] wherein the Apex Court held that the affidavits and the entries as made in the account books not having been controverted, [ here in the case entries confirmed in the affidavit ] the department could not challenge its nature the other content mentioned in that affidavit of having not been paid the interest to the assessee cannot be disput…

Mahendra Singh Ratnawat, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 223/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 44ASection 69A

…No. 828/JP/16 (h) CIT Vs Ashok Kumar Soni (2007) 291, ITR, 172 (Raj.) (i) KailashbenManharlal Chokshi Vs CIT (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat) (j) CIT, Central –II, Mumbai Vs Omprakash K. Jain (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay) (k) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) (1) Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs CIT, Dhanbad (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand) (m) CIT, Karnataka Vs Shri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman 187 (Andhra Pradesh) (n) Chetnaben J. Shah Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3) (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujarat). (o) CIT vs Jagdish Prasad Mohan Lal Joshi (2018) 99 Taxman.com 288(SC) (p) Mantri Share…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 645/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…elopers (P.) Ltd. c) Monohar Lal Rattan Lal vs. DCIT ITAT Amritsar Bench d) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (Delhi) e) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (Supra), (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (DEL) (CLPB, Pgs. 36-41). f) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) 6. The Ld. AR contended that the AO has every right to controvert the claim of assessee but while doing so, the AO ought to have conducted necessary enquiries to verify the correctness of the claim of assessee instead of relying on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and ignoring the evidence filed by the assessee. Statement u/s 1…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 644/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…elopers (P.) Ltd. c) Monohar Lal Rattan Lal vs. DCIT ITAT Amritsar Bench d) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (Delhi) e) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (Supra), (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (DEL) (CLPB, Pgs. 36-41). f) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) 6. The Ld. AR contended that the AO has every right to controvert the claim of assessee but while doing so, the AO ought to have conducted necessary enquiries to verify the correctness of the claim of assessee instead of relying on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and ignoring the evidence filed by the assessee. Statement u/s 1…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeals of assessee in ITA No

ITA 643/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Hon’Ble & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi, Hon’Ble

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 153ASection 69Section 69A

…elopers (P.) Ltd. c) Monohar Lal Rattan Lal vs. DCIT ITAT Amritsar Bench d) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (Delhi) e) PCIT Vs. Smt. Rashmi Rajiv Mehta (Supra), (2024) 299 Taxman 82 (DEL) (CLPB, Pgs. 36-41). f) Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT 30 ITR 181 (SC) 6. The Ld. AR contended that the AO has every right to controvert the claim of assessee but while doing so, the AO ought to have conducted necessary enquiries to verify the correctness of the claim of assessee instead of relying on the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act and ignoring the evidence filed by the assessee. Statement u/s 1…

Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain, Kota vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 642/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOONTANAT M EMEBER, DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMEBER

For Appellant: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, C.AFor Respondent: SHRI RAJESH OJHA, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 69C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR BEFORE: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOONTANAT M EMEBER AND DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JUDICIAL MEMEBER ITA Nos. 642/JP/2025 Assessment Years: 2014-15 Sh. Manoj Kumar Jain Vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Kalani & Co., Chartered Accountants, Kota. 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur. PAN/GIR No.: ABPPJ1500N Appellant Respondent Assessee by: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, C.A. Revenue by: SHRI RAJESH OJHA, CIT-DR : 15/07/2025 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement: 11/09/2025 ORDER Per: Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: This appeal by assessee is directed ag…

Anil Kumar Batar, Sikar vs. PCIT-Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 418/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Sept 2025AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 263

…gal position that in the cases where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. Kindly refer Mehta Pareek& Co. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO v. Dr.TejgopalBhatnagar 20 TW 368 (Jp)Paras Cotton Company vs. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD)., CIT v/s LunardDimond Ltd. 281 ITR 1 (Del). Recently in CIT v/s Bhawani Oil Mills (P) Ltd 239 CTR 445/49 DTR 212(Raj.)- It has been held that contents of affidavit could not be treated as of a lesser importance than the statement given by the credit…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Velachery

ITA 632/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 325/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 324/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 323/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai, Tamilnadu

ITA 322/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Chennai vs. Kag India Private Limited, Chennai

ITA 321/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.322/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2014-15 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.323/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2015-16 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.324/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2017-18 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.325/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2018-19 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.321/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2019-20 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.632/Chny/2025, A.Y.: 2021-22

For Appellant: Mr.Bipin C.N, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144ASection 153A

…e and countering the claim through appropriate corroborative evidence, against the assessee. This principle has been laid down to be an essential feature to be followed in case of retraction by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Mehta Parrikh (1956) 30 ITR 181. However, the facts stated in it were neither controverted nor disproved by the AO and an examination of the assessee was never undertaken. Therefore, the retraction made by the assessee gets sanctified. However, the addition made is capable to withstand the test of this appeal, if the same finds ITA No.322, 323, 324, 325, 321 & 632/Chny/2025 (A…

Mohammed Abdul Najeeb, Gulbarga, Karnataka vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Bellary

ITA 1175/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Respondent: Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA
Section 127Section 131(1)(d)Section 142ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 153D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1175/Bang/2024 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Mohammad Abdul Najeeb, H.No. 81, 4th Cross, Hussain Garden, MSK Mill, Kalaburagi – 585 103. Karnataka. PAN: ABCPA3077A APPELLANT Assessee by Revenue by : Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA : Shri Muthu Shankar, CIT-DR The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle, Vs. Bellari. RESPONDENT Date of Hearing : 02-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29-08-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal…

Sh. Kapil Taneja, Jaipur vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 578/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

…ee on its merits denied and filed affidavit ld. AO did not controvert that fact even before us and therefore, we hold that the facts stated on affidavit cannot be disbelieved considering the decision of apex court in the cae of Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [ 30 ITR 181] and thereby we direct to delete the addition. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 11/08/2025. ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member 42 Sh. Kapil Taneja vs. DCIT Tk;i…

Rameshwar Lal Vyas, Beawar, Ajmer vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1257/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Narinder Kumar

For Respondent: Shri Vinod Gupta CA, Ld. AR
Section 133ASection 139Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 69

…or: Kamal Trading Co. as creditor. In support of the importance of affidavit, the AR of the assessee also referred to judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Daulat Ram Rawatmull vs. CIT [(1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC)] and Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. CIT [(1965) 30 ITR 181 (SC)]. The AR further submitted that when neither any unaccounted purchase or sale was found and the addition on account of excess stock has already been deleted by Ld. CIT(A), then there remains no room for any cash payment and for invoking section 69, existence of investment, during the year, is a pre-requisite. With regard to the statement, the…

Professional Automotives Private Limited, Jammu vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA no

ITA 812/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील /ITA Nos.809 to 815/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Years :2013-14 to 2019-20 Professional Automotives Pvt. बनाम ACIT, Ltd. Bahu Plaza, Bahu Plaza, Jammu Vs. Central Circle- 1, and Kashmir Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं./जी.आई.आर. सं./PAN/GIR No.:AAACP9608E अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्र]त्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by :Shri Tarun Mittal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT (Th. V.C)
Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…Raj.), KailashbenManharlal Chokshi Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) 174 Taxman 466 (Gujarat); Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-II, Mumbai Vs. Omprakash K. Jain, (2009) 178 Taxman 179 (Bombay); Mehta Parikh & Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC); Shree Ganesh Trading Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Dhanbad, (2013) 257 CTR 159 (Jharkhand), Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Vs. ShriRamdas Motor Transport Ltd. (2015) 230 Taxman Professional Automotives Private Limited vs. ACIT 187 (Andhra Pradesh), Chetnaben J. Shah Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(3), (2016) 288 CTR 579 (Gujara…

Rangamani Krishnan, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result all the five appeals filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 457/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R.Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 & Sa Nos.41, 42, 43, 44 & 45/Chny/2025 [In Ita Nos. 453, 454, 455, 456 & 457/Chny/2025]

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, CIT
Section 131Section 142Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69

…w recognizes that where a statement is made by a party, it must be considered in its entirety, and not in isolation. This principle, recognized as the “doctrine of whole truth”, prevents selective appreciation of evidence. In Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where an assessee makes a statement, the entirety of the statement must be evaluated, and it is impermissible for the Department to accept one part while discarding the rest without independent verification. Applying this principle, the Revenue cannot accept the assessee’s :-25-: ITA. Nos:453 to 457/Chny…