Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal

82 ITD 85Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2002#368 most cited

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

Evidence corroborating entries of payments or loan/interest advancements found in seized material from a third party must specifically show the actual transfer of money from the third party to the recipient to be admissible.

237

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal · 82 ITD 85 · section 132 · section 153A · seized material · third party evidence · corroboration of entries · onus of proof · actual transfer of money · cash credits

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing Mumbai), DCIT v. Vipin Aggarwal

ACIT, CC-1, Jaipur vs. Dr. Shiv Gautam, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 85/JPR/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Mar 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 85/Jp/2021 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2017-18 A.C.I.T., Cuke Dr. Shiv Gautam, Central Circle-1, Vs. 1, Gokul, Jacob Road, Civil Lines, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abopg 4893 N Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (Cit-Dr) Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri P.C. Parwal (Ca) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 31/03/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 28/05/2021 For The A.Y. 2017-18 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.17.30 Lakhs Inspite Of The Fact That The Assessee Has Made Surrender Of This Amount In His Statement Recorded As Per Law & Had Attributed It To Hitherto Undisclosed Receipts. 2. Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 1,77,34,000/-

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhariwal (CIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 250Section 250(4)

…CIT ITA No.484/JP/2016 dt.01.12.2017 (Jaipur) (Trib.) (ii) DCIT Vs. Smt. Manishaben N. Mashru ITA No.958/RJT/2010 dt.04.01.2018 (Rajkot) (Trib.) (iii) DCIT Vs GSNR Rice Industries Pvt Limited (2021) 90 ITR (Trib.) 114 (Chennai) (iv) S.P. Goyal Vs. DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 (Mum.)(Trib.) 20. We have considered the rival contentions and carefully perused the material placed on record. From perusal of the record, we found that the ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the issue in para 6.3 of her order and the same is as under: “6.3 I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the appellant as against the obse…