Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal

82 ITD 85Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#368 most cited

What is Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal authority for?

Additions to income in search assessments based solely on uncorroborated 'dumb documents' or unverified third-party information are not sustainable, requiring the Assessing Officer to provide further evidence and the assessee the opportunity to rebut any presumption.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal · 82 ITD 85 · Section 153A assessment · Section 132 search and seizure · Section 292C presumption · Section 132(4A) presumption · dumb documents · onus of proof · third party information · corroboration of evidence · additions to income · hundi transaction

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 292CSection 132(4)Section 132(4A)Section 69Section 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

buyback of shareshundi transactionsection 23(3)section 132(4a)dumb documentssection 292csection 158bbsection 158b(b)third party informationonus of proofsection 65bsection 269t

Judgments citing Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal

MYSTICAL CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is Allowed

ITA 5222/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalι.Τ.Α. No.5222/Mum/2024 A.Y: 2011-12 Mystical Pvt Ltd Constructions A 603, A1 Akbar Bldg, Pe Road, Momin Nagar, Jogeswari (W), Mumbai - 400102 Pan - Aaccn5191N (Appellant) Vs Dcit, Circle 5(2)(1) Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai. (Respondent) Assessee By Ms. Simran Dhawan A/W Mr. Ravi Gantara Revenue By Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02.02.2026 Order Per: Shri. Sandeep Gosain, J.M.: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order Dt. 06.08.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 250Section 271(1)Section 274

…made basis for adding undisclosed income in hands of assessee. This decision has been followed by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Ganesh Plantation Ltd. [2022] 134 taxmann.com 149 (Gujarat) and by the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of S.P. Goyal [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai) and in the case of Straptex (India) (P.) Ltd. [2003] 84 ITD 320 (Mumbai). 11. We also find that reasonable opportunity for cross examination was not provided to the assessee to cross-examine Shri AkshayDoshi, whose statement was heavily relied upon by the Revenue. Therefore, considering the above observations, the reassessment proceedings…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. RAMANATHAN VISWANATHAN, CHENNAI

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1556/CHNY/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Naga PrasadFor Respondent: Smt. E. Pavuna Sundari
Section 132Section 139Section 142(1)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एबी टी. वक", "ाियक सद" एवं एवं एवं एवं "ी एस. आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1321 to 1324/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15 to 2017-18 R. Viswanathan, v. The DCIT, Flat No.A-4, Central Circle-1(4), Rams Anjali Atrium No.8, Chennai. Sundaram Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai-600 028. [PAN: ADLPV 6760 G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.1556 & 1597/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assess…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. MUTHULAKSHMI VELLAISAMY, TIRUPUR

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

ITA 610/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) ITAT, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.27 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual tran…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAI vs. GNANAGURU LAVANYA, TIRUPUR

ITA 605/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 605/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Gnanaguru Lavanya, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan: Abipl-5558-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 610/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. Muthulakshmi Vellaisamy, Vs. 52, Iswarya Garden, Rakkiyapalayam Road, Ammapalayam, Avinashi Road, Tirupur - 641 654. [Pan:Afbpg-3703-L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 139(4)

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.27 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual tran…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. KARUPPANNA GOUNDER PALANIAPPA GOUNDER MARIAPPAN, KARUR

ITA 1631/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1628/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Maragathamani Shanmugam, Vs. 54A, Muthu Nagar, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Abkps-2816-H] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1629/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -2, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Ramasamy Moolimangalam Vs. Vaishnava Priya, 33, B7 Adhisri Apartments, Kothari Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai - 600 034. [Pan:Adwpv-0050-A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1631/Chny/2025 Acit, Central Circle -1, Trichy. निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Karuppanna Gounder Palaniappa Vs. Gounder Mariappan, No.1, 80 Feet Road, Sengunthapuram, Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Agppm-2363-M] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.TFor Respondent: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 69

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.2.13 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the narrations indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual t…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, TRICHY, INCOME TAX OFFICE, TRICHY vs. LIFE LINE AUTO FINANCE, KARUR

ITA 1630/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1630/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2, Trichy. Vs. Life Line Auto Finance, 306-B1, First Floor, Bharathi Nagar, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan:Aaefl-7071-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am: The Present Appeal Of The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.03.2015 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)”], Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Trichy (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ao”] U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”], For The Assessment Year 2013–14. :-2-:

For Appellant: Shri. R. Venkata Raman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 101Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 292C(1)Section 34Section 69A

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT-Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (ΤΜ) ΙΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.5.11 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the narrations indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual t…

AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CC - 4(3),, KOLKATA

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

ITA 2007/KOL/2025[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…pport from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1499/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…pport from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARAWAL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1498/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…pport from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books…

DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1497/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…pport from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. AMAR KUMAR AGARWAL, KOLKATA

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

ITA 1440/KOL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Jhajharia, ARFor Respondent: S/shri Raja Sengupta &
Section 132Section 153ASection 44ASection 69A

…pport from the following decisions:- “1. CBI vs. V.C. Shukla (1998) taxmann.com 2155 (SC) 2. Common cause V. U.O.I 394 ITR 220 (SC) 3. PCIT Vs. UmeshIshrani (2019) 108 taxmann.com 437 (Bom) 4. K.P. Varghese V. ITO 131 ITR 597 (SC) 5. S.P. Goyal V.DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mumbai AT)” 11.6. Moreover, the presumption as provided in Section 292C of the Act cannot be taken against the assessee as these documents were not found from the assessee but from the associate concerns and that the presumption is to be drawn in respect of impugned transactions in the hands of the person from whose possession or control the books…

ACIT, CC, AGRA, AGRA vs. M/S. UNITED FARM PRODUCT PRIVATE LIMITED, AGRA

In the result, appeal preferred by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 299/AGR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhacit, Cc, Vs. M/S. United Farm Product Pvt. Ltd., 2/220, 2Nd Floor, Glory Plaza, Agra. Soor Sadan, M.G. Road, Agra – 282 002 (Agra) (Pan :Aaccu2505M) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate Shri Deependra Mohan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 04.12.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman,Am: 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Kanpur – 4 Dated 28.03.2025 For Assessment Year2022-23 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “L. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law. The Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.43,71,37,934/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act Incurred For Construction Of Plant At Mewat, Haryana, Without Appreciating The Fact That The Assessee Company Itself Has Surrendered Amount Of Rs.41,40,35,700/- & Admitted To Take The Unexplained Expenditure At Rs.43,71,37,934/- Incurred In The 2 Construction Of Said Plant. Hence, The Addition Made By The Ao Is Based On Admittance By The Assessee, Which Is Corroborated By The Incriminating Material Found During The Course Of Search. 2. Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A)-Iv. Kanpur Has Erred In Deleting The Addition. Without Appreciating The Facts That The Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order After Thoroughly Examining & Analysing The Seized Material & Proper Appreciation Of Facts Of Unexplained Expenditure U/S 69C Of The Act.”

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, CIT DR
Section 69C

…Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi (Central)-II v. D.K. Gupta [2008] 174 TAXMAN 476 (DELHI) - Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in case of Ashwini Kumar v. ITO 39 ITD 183 (Delhi) - The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002J 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM) - Hyderabad bench of ITAT in case of Nagarjuna Construction Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 23 taxmann.com 239 - Hon’ble M.P. High Court in case of CIT vs. C.L. Khatri (2005) 147 Taxman 652 - In case of T. Mudduveerappa Sons (1993) 45 ITD 12 (Bang.) - DCIT vs. Krorilal Aggarwal (1994) 50 TTJ (Jab.) 393 - M.V. Mathew vs. ITO (1993) 46 TTJ 353 (…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 905/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT- Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.22 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual tran…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. CHITRAVEL VETRIMARAN, CHENNAI

ITA 904/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2025AY 2017-18
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250Section 271D

…(2007) 107 TTJ (Chennai) 200, Regency Mahavir Properties Vs ACIT [2018] 169 ITD 35 (ITAT-Mumbai), ACIT Vs. Katrina Rosemary Turcotte [2017] 190 TTJ 681 (ITAT- Mumbai), DCIT Vs. Vipin Aggarwal [2017] 83 taxmann.com 6 (ITAT Chandigarh), S.P Goyal Vs DCIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (TM) IΠΑΤ, T.S Venkatesan Vs ACIT [2000] 74 ITD 298 (Cal) and Monga Metals (P) Ltd Vs ACTT [2000] 67 TTJ 247 (All). 6.3.22 In particular, it is of critical importance that the evidence to corroborate the entries indicating payments in the seized material found with a third party is available with specific reference to the fact regarding actual tran…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

…t the revenue authority was not justified in making such an\naddition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the\nground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.\n• The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85\n(Mum.) (TM) held as under:\n“...loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous\nyear. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the\npurpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain\nnothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative ev…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 733/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19
Section 153ASection 250

…the revenue authority was not justified in making such an\naddition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the\nground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.\n•\nThe Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85\n(Mum.) (TM) held as under:\n“...loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous\nyear. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the\npurpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain\nnothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative ev…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 602/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

…n totality and the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, addition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.  The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM)held as under: “…loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous year. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the purpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence i…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

ITA 551/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2019-20
For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

…an\naddition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the\nground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.\n16\nITA No. 441 & others/JP/2025\nSilver & Arts Palace\n• The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85\n(Mum.) (TM) held as under:\n“...loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous\nyear. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the\npurpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain\nnothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative ev…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 534/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

…n totality and the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, addition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.  The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM)held as under: “…loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous year. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the purpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence i…

SILVER & ART PALACE,JAIPUR vs. ACIT, JAIPUR

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 460/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. S. Seethalakshmi & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Mr. Vinod Gupta, CA. Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 250

…n totality and the discussion made in the preceding paragraph, addition merely based on certain rough noting made on loose sheets. Hence, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee is hereby allowed”.  The Mumbai ITAT in case of S.P. Goyal v. Dy. CIT [2002] 82 ITD 85 (Mum.) (TM)held as under: “…loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous year. Loose sheet of paper torn out of a diary could not be construed as books for the purpose of section 68. Addition could not be made simply on the basis of certain nothings on loose sheets of a diary without any corroborative evidence i…

Showing 1–20 of 237 · Page 1 of 12

...
Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal (82 ITD 85) — Cited in 237 Judgments | BharatTax