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 367,164 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

M/S. Mukka Proteins Limited (Formerly Know As Mukka Sea Food Industries Ltd., Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Mangaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 431/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 153DSection 234A

…ed by revenue against his interests and thereby principles of natural justice had been violated. 3.10.11 Reliance is also placed on the following decisions: • State of Kerala v. K. T. Shaduli Yusuff [(1977) 39 STC 478 SC)] • Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT [(1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC)] • Vasanji Ghela & Co, v. CST — [(1977) 40 STC 544 (Bom)] • CIT v. Ashish International [ITA No. 4299 of 2009, Order Dated 22.02.201, Bombay High court] 3.11 ADDITION MERELY BASED ON STATEMENT IS INVALID: 3.11.1 As evident from the assessment order the entire addition is dependent on the statement recorded under section 132(4) and not materi…

Swarn Ganga Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1) Now DCIT, Circle 1(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 675/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: This Tribunal Being Aggrieved By An Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1045180258(1) For A.Y. 2017-18 Dt. 05/09/2022 Which Is Hereinafter Referred To As The “Impugned Order”. The Impugned Order Is Passed By Cit(A) In Terms Of Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Factual Matrix 2. That Survey U/S 133A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Conducted On The Business Premises Of The Assessee On 06/09/2016. The Assessee Surrendered A Sum Of Rs. 50,00,000/- During The Survey & Paid Tax Thereon. The Return Of Income Was Filed On 01/11/2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs. 89,48,260/-. Thereafter The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Compulsory Scrutiny Guidelines & Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued On 11/09/2018. The Assessment Was Finalised Vide Order Dt. 23/12/2019 Whereby Addition Of Rs. 95,70,882/- Was Made U/S 68 R.W..S 115Bbe Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 250Section 253Section 68

…have neither been rejected nor are doubted, accounts could not be bye passed merely on the whims and fancies of the authorities." 11.3 Further, reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. The T…

M/S. Sanjay Gold Palace, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 6(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1629/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1629/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Sanjay Gold Palace, V. Non-Corporate Ward 6(3), Shop No. 16/A, Nsc Bose Road, Chennai – 600 006. Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Adcfs-8067-N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.05.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.05.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69B

…es register, cash book and demonstrated that the cash was deposited in SBN was out of sales proceeds of stock on hand. The assessee also relied on the following judgments: (i) CIT vs Devi Prasad Vishwnath Prasad [1969] 72 ITR 194 (SC) (ii) Mehta Parikh & Co 30 ITR 181 (SC) (iii) CIT vs Kailash Jewellery House – ITA 613/2010 Delhi HC (iv) Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya vs ITO – ITA 1220/Del/2011, ITAT Delhi (v) CIT vs Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd –TA No. 2471 of 2009 Guajarat HC (vi) New Pooja Jewelers vs ITO – ITA 1329/Kol/2018, ITAT Kolkata (vii) CIT vs Jaora Flour and Foods (P) Ltd [2012] 344 ITR 294 22 Madhy…

Gujranwala Jewels, Ambala City vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Ambala Cantt

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 700/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 700/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Gujranwala Jewels, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ambala Whole Sale Cloth Ward-2, Market, Ambala Kalka Chowk, Ambala "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aapfg8259G अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent ( Virtual Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Goel, C.A. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.05.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Goel, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…on represented by the entries in books, then it is not open to the other side to contend that what is shown by the entries is not the real state of affairs. Kind attention is invited to : A. Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) 700-Chd-2023 – Gujranwala Jewels, Ambala City 6 "To put the matter in a nut-shell, the accounts of the appellant have been accepted by the Tribunal as genuine, and it is impossible to say, having regard to the cash balance as shown therein, that the notes in question could not have been included therein." B. P&H HC - M/s S.V. Auto Indust…

Deshraj Kasana, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 3663/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 144Section 147Section 148

…ble evidence and the contents therein need to be construed as true when the same was not put to test by the Revenue authorities. This issue is no longer res-integra by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT reported in 30 ITR 181 (SC). Hence, the cash source available with the assessee to the extent of Rs. 20 lakhs needs to be accepted. 9. The assessee gave further explanation that he had received cash from his two sons, totaling to Rs. 19,85,000/-. The assessee had submitted that his sons had sold their agricultural land and had received sale proceeds thereon in the…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 111/CHANDI/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 110/CHANDI/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 109/CHANDI/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 108/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 107/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 106/CHANDI/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

Sh. Parshotam Lal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, CC-1, Ludhiana

In the result, we upheld the addition totaling to Rs 18,31,800/- towards cash seized u/s 69A in A

ITA 105/CHANDI/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Apr 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ “बी” , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"य" एवं "ी िव"म "सह यादव, लेखा सद"य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 105 To 111/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 To 2020-21 Shri Parshotam Lal बनाम The DCIT S/o Shri Raj Kumar Central Circle-1, Ludhiana H.No. 8/152, Mandi Mullanpur, Ludhiana – 141101, Punjab "थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BCPPL1074H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehga…

The ITO, Ward-3(2)(4), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Radhe Krishna Developers, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 418/AHD/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Apr 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 40A(3)Section 69Section 69B

…has not bothered to verify or cross examine the author of the affidavits and merely requested in the remand report not to place reliance on the affidavits. Such an action would not be justifiable. Reliance is placed in the case of Mehta Parikh v. CIT 919556) 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "The cash book of the appellants was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. No further documents or vouchers in relation to those entries were called for, nor was the presence of the deponents of the three affidavits considered necessary by either party. The assesses took it that the affidavits of…

Windlas Jewellers, Ambala, Haryana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Ambala, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 821/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 250Section 68

…ave neither been rejected nor are doubted, accounts could not be bye passed merely on the whims and fancies of the authorities." 11.3 Further, reference was drawn to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in case of Mehta Parikh and Company vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) wherein it was held as under: "It has to be noted, however, that beyond these calculations of figures, no further scrutiny was made by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of the entries in the cash book of the appellants. The cash book of the appellants was accepted and the entries therein were not challenged. The…

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1123/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ck and choose method by using that part of the contents of the diary which is beneficial to the AO and reject other contents of the diary which are detrimental to the AO. In this regard, reliance can be placed in the cases of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 417 (Guj), Glass Lines Equipment Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). The Pune Tribunal in the case of Kantilal & Bros. reported in 52 ITD 412 after making reference to judicial precedence referred supra, deduced the following principles : & IT(SS)A No. 22/PUN/2023 (i) A document seized in the…

Shri Ashok Bhawarlal Jain, Pune vs. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 1122/PUN/2023[A.Y- 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: S/Shri Pawan Chakrapani &For Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…ck and choose method by using that part of the contents of the diary which is beneficial to the AO and reject other contents of the diary which are detrimental to the AO. In this regard, reliance can be placed in the cases of Mehta Parikh & Co. vs. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Navjivan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2001) 252 ITR 417 (Guj), Glass Lines Equipment Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 454 (Guj). The Pune Tribunal in the case of Kantilal & Bros. reported in 52 ITD 412 after making reference to judicial precedence referred supra, deduced the following principles : & IT(SS)A No. 22/PUN/2023 (i) A document seized in the…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1065/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 9.82 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under: - "In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the TTO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, tto dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the sa…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1064/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 9.82 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under: - "In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the TTO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, tto dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the sa…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1062/BANG/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 9.82 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under: - "In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the TTO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, tto dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the sa…

Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-1(3), Bengaluru

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

ITA 1061/BANG/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Mar 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R
Section 153CSection 271ASection 69

…the case of Andaman Timber Industries (supra) quashed the assessment order on the reason of not providing cross-examination of witnesses whose statements were recorded. 9.82 He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT, 30 ITR 181 held as under: - "In the instant case a mere calculation of the nature indulged in by the TTO or the AAC was not enough, without any further scrutiny, tto dislodge the position taken up by the assessee, supported as it was, by the entries in the cash book and the affidavits put in by the assessee before the AAC. The Tribunal also fell into the sa…