Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT

49 ITR 561High Court1963#1586 most cited

What is Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT authority for?

An assessment is rendered void if the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine a third party whose adverse evidence is used against them. The Assessing Officer possesses powers akin to a civil court for summoning witnesses and enforcing their appearance.

71

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,418 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT · Section 131 · cross-examination · natural justice · assessment void · adverse evidence · Assessing Officer powers · summon witness · Civil Procedure Code powers

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

Issues it is cited on

penalty under section 271econstruction pepenalty under section 271dcorpus fundsection 269ton money receiptsection 53joint development agreementsection 269sjdatrcsection 271e

Judgments citing Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT

Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4121/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…ence thereof no adverse inference could have been drawn against the assessee:- (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT Vs. V. B. Aggarwal 296 ITR 750 (Del) (c) EMC Works (P) Ltd Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All) (d) Nathu Ram Premchand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) (e) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del). 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that in the loose papers and the diary seized the names are mentioned, dates are mentioned, amounts are mentioned and, therefore, it is not a dumb document. The ld. DR submits that…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4120/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…ence thereof no adverse inference could have been drawn against the assessee:- (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT Vs. V. B. Aggarwal 296 ITR 750 (Del) (c) EMC Works (P) Ltd Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All) (d) Nathu Ram Premchand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) (e) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del). 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that in the loose papers and the diary seized the names are mentioned, dates are mentioned, amounts are mentioned and, therefore, it is not a dumb document. The ld. DR submits that…

Brahmaputra Infraprojects Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4119/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…ence thereof no adverse inference could have been drawn against the assessee:- (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT Vs. V. B. Aggarwal 296 ITR 750 (Del) (c) EMC Works (P) Ltd Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All) (d) Nathu Ram Premchand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) (e) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del). 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that in the loose papers and the diary seized the names are mentioned, dates are mentioned, amounts are mentioned and, therefore, it is not a dumb document. The ld. DR submits that…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4118/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…ence thereof no adverse inference could have been drawn against the assessee:- (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT Vs. V. B. Aggarwal 296 ITR 750 (Del) (c) EMC Works (P) Ltd Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All) (d) Nathu Ram Premchand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) (e) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del). 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that in the loose papers and the diary seized the names are mentioned, dates are mentioned, amounts are mentioned and, therefore, it is not a dumb document. The ld. DR submits that…

Brahamputra Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 15, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 4117/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Ms. Monika Agarwal, Adv
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153D

…ence thereof no adverse inference could have been drawn against the assessee:- (a) CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) (b) CIT Vs. V. B. Aggarwal 296 ITR 750 (Del) (c) EMC Works (P) Ltd Vs. ITO 49 ITR 650 (All) (d) Nathu Ram Premchand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) (e) CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) (f) CIT Vs. Divine Leasing and Finance Ltd. 299 ITR 268 (Del). 13. On the other hand, the ld. DR submits that in the loose papers and the diary seized the names are mentioned, dates are mentioned, amounts are mentioned and, therefore, it is not a dumb document. The ld. DR submits that…

Ahuja and Anand Buildwell Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 349/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Dr. Brr Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 132(1)Section 133(6)Section 68

…m the plain reading of the assessment order is that notices u/s 131 were served. That being so and if compliance has not been made by such persons, then as per the judicial decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchandvs. Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561, blame cannot be ascribed to the assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court are as under:- “It appears that Banarasidas was examined not in the assessment proceedings giving rise to this reference but in those relating to the assessment of Banarasidas. Section 37(1) of the Act confers on the Income-tax Officer,…

Parmesh Construction Company Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle - 1, Noida

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

ITA 346/DEL/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 37(1)Section 68

…he plain reading of the assessment order is that notices u/s 131 were served. That being so and if compliance has not been made by such persons, then as per the judicial decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Premchandvs. Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561, blame cannot be ascribed to the assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court are as under:- “It appears that Banarasidas was examined not in the assessment proceedings giving rise to this reference but in those relating to the assessment of Banarasidas. Section 37(1) of the Act confers on the Income-tax Office…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 232/JPR/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…cer. The Ld. AO has rejected the documentary evidence on arbitrary grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is su…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 231/JPR/2020[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…cer. The Ld. AO has rejected the documentary evidence on arbitrary grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is su…

M/S. Rajasthan Patrika Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 230/JPR/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2005-06
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…cer. The Ld. AO has rejected the documentary evidence on arbitrary grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is su…

Rajasthan Patrika (P) Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the results ground no

ITA 510/JPR/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2022AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehara, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)

…cer. The Ld. AO has rejected the documentary evidence on arbitrary grounds, and therefore the burden lies upon him to establish that the expenditure incurred by the appellant was not for any service rendered. In the case of Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All), and of EMC (Works) Private Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All), it has been held that even in the case of a creditor, burden is on the Assessing Officer to enforce the attendance of the creditor. It is thus respectfully submitted that no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellant assessee in the present case. Further, it is su…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shri Ashokkumar Mohanlal Jain, Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1340/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

For Appellant: Shri Chetan L. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133(6)

…es issued under section 133(6) of the Act were return unserved or not complied with, does give right to the AO to make unwarranted addition and in this regard refer the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of M/s Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All). The AO only considered the outcome of the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act whereas no comment was offered on additional evidences furnished. The AO only disputed the creditors balances whereas no dispute was raised with regard to the purchases made during the year which ultimately resulted in sale. 5.4 The learned CIT (A) aft…

Shri Ashok Mohanlal Jain, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1207/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1207/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Ashok Mohanlal Jain, I.T.O, Prop Of Parshwanth Enterprise, Vs. Ward-1(3)(1), S/3, Sujata Flats, Ahmedabad. Camp Road, Sahibaug, Ahmedabad-380004. Pan: Aczpj7617B

For Appellant: Shri Chetan L. Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.D.R
Section 133Section 133(6)

…es issued under section 133(6) of the Act were return unserved or not complied with, does give right to the AO to make unwarranted addition and in this regard refer the judgment of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in case of M/s Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT (1963) 49 ITR 561 (All). The AO only considered the outcome of the notices issued under section 133(6) of the Act whereas no comment was offered on additional evidences furnished. The AO only disputed the creditors balances whereas no dispute was raised with regard to the purchases made during the year which ultimately resulted in sale. 5.4 The learned CIT (A) aft…

DCIT-13(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 4169/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit-13(3)(2), M/S Vedartha Entertainment Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor, Vs. 201, 2Nd Floor, Jaimala Apartment, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Near Hotel Shimmers, Link Road, Mumbai-400020. Malad (E), Mumbai-400064. Pan No. Aaecv 0129 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Usha Gaikwad, Dr Assessee By : Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, Ar Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 25/11/2021

For Appellant: Ms. Neelkant Khandelwal, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Usha Gaikwad, DR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)

…ce attendance of a witness if his evidence is material. Thus, it the AO does not exercise his power to call the witness and examine him, he cannot treat the deposit in the name of the witness as assessee's suppressed income (Nathu Ram Premchand v. CIT, (1963) 49 ITR 561 (AIl); E.M.C. Works Pr. Ltd. v. ITO, (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All); MunnalalMurlidhar v. CIT, (1971) 79 ITR 540 (Al); R.S. Seth Gopikisan Agarwal v. A.C. of S.T., (1971) Tax LR 355 (MP). Also see, Ashok Electro Diamonds v. Jt. CTO, (1971) 28 TC 21 (Mad); Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhanti v. CST, (1988) 69 STC 229, 230 (All); CIT v. Ter Karadhenu Vyapa…

M/S Shubham Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd., Ellenabad vs. DCIT, Circle, Sirsa

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1416/CHANDI/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh05 Oct 2021AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234Section 234B

…ITR 151 (SC) • Dhirajlal Girdharilal Vs. CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) • Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 • CIT Vs. Genesis Commet (P) Ltd. 163 Taxman 482 (Del) • Nathu Ram Prem Chand Vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) • EMC Machine Works Vs. CIT 49 ITR 650 (All) • CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) • State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B.P. Singh Deo 76 ITR 690(SC) • State of Kerala Vs. C. Velukutty 60 ITR 239 (SC) • Kachwala Germs Vs. CIT 288 ITR 10 (SC) 6.3 The assessee also submitted to the Ld. CIT(A) that the replies were furnished to…

Jagat Singh, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarnagar

ITA 1128/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Senior DR

…s not preferred to enforce the attendance of the witnesses and relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Orissa Corp. 159 ITR 78 (SC), Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Sheo Narian Duli Chand 72 ITR 766 (All.), Nathu Ram Premchand vs. CIT 49 ITR 561 (All.), and coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mukesh V Prajapati vs. ITO in ITA No.2118/Ahm/2007. 9. However, on the other hand, ld. DR for the Revenue to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. AR for the assessee contended that since the land in question was taken by the assessee at nominal lease rent and was submerged with water i…

Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO, WD-13(2)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 4100/MUM/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

….com 460 (HC-Raj) M/s. Shakti Share Shoppee Pvt. Ltd. 17. Pr. CIT 5 v/s. Laxman Industrial Resources Ltd. ITA 169/2017 CM Appl. 7385/2017(HC - Delhi) 18. CIT v/s. Value Capital Services (P.) Ltd. ITA No. 348 of 2008 (HC-Delhi) 19. Nathu Ram Premchand v/s. CIT 49 ITR 561 (HC-Allahabad) 20. CIT v/s. Expo Globe India Ltd. 51 Taxmann.com (HC-Delhi) 21. CIT vs Victony Spinning Mills Ltd. 50 taxmann.com 416 (HC- Madras) 22. CIT v/s. Dwarkadhish Investment (P.) Ltd. 1 94 Taxman 43 (HC-Delhi) 23. CIT v/s. M/S. Nishan Indo Commerce Ltd. ITA No. 52 of 2001(HC-Calcutta ) 24. CIT v/s. Vacmet Packaging (India) (P.) Ltd. 45 T…

Anil Bhalla, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 3142/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module)

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. D. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…his power u/s 131 of the Income ITA Nos. 2113 & 3142/Del/2017 3 Anil Bhalla Tax Act, as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Prem Chand and as such the credits could not be held as unexplained without having summoned the creditor. (See 49 ITR 561) 4. That further the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition, disregarding that the assessee had led satisfactory evidence before him to establish the genuineness of the credit which was well explained. 5. That he also has failed to appreciate that income returned by the assessee was of a substantial sum of Rs. 2,30,08,530/- and in the a…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Anil Bhalla, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department is liable to be dismissed

ITA 2113/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowladr. B. R. R. Kumar(E-Court Module)

For Appellant: Sh. C. S. Aggarwal, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. D. K. Mishra, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 153ASection 68

…his power u/s 131 of the Income ITA Nos. 2113 & 3142/Del/2017 3 Anil Bhalla Tax Act, as held by the Allahabad High Court in the case of Nathu Ram Prem Chand and as such the credits could not be held as unexplained without having summoned the creditor. (See 49 ITR 561) 4. That further the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition, disregarding that the assessee had led satisfactory evidence before him to establish the genuineness of the credit which was well explained. 5. That he also has failed to appreciate that income returned by the assessee was of a substantial sum of Rs. 2,30,08,530/- and in the a…

Shri Balkrishna Purshottamdas Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy, CIT, Circle - 11, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 985/AHD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 Oct 2020AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virendra Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68Section 69

…e thereof which is also recorded in the book of accounts and therefore provisions of Section 69 have no application in the present case. The appellant has relied upon the following decisions :- Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) Natu Ram PremchandVs.CIT 49 ITR 561 (All) Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd. 206 Taxman 254 (Delhi HC) Audobindo Sanitary Stores Vs. CIT 276 ITR 549 (Ori) The appellant has also contended that out of total investment of Rs. 1,08,85,528/-, an amount of Rs.76 lakhs was made in earlier years and amount of Rs.32,82,5287- was made during the year. Out of which Rs.22,85,528/- were invested by S…