Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

264 ITR 254High Court2003#227 most cited

What is Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT authority for?

For a cash credit, merely transacting by cheque is insufficient to discharge the assessee's burden of proof. The assessee must prove the identity of the creditors, the genuineness of the transaction, and the creditworthiness of the creditors; upon which, the burden shifts to the revenue.

340

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT · Section 68 · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · identity of creditors · genuineness of transaction · creditworthiness of creditors · transaction by cheque · share application money · unexplained cash credit

Also reported as

136 Taxmann 213

Sections most often in play

Section 68Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

section 106creditworthiness of the creditorsource of sourceonus of proofshare capital and share premiumshell companyaddition under section 68addition u/s 68share application moneygenuineness of the transactionsection 127admission of additional evidence

Judgments citing Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT

Quest Online, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1046/KOL/2023[2020-21`]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No.1046/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online…………………………………...............................……….……Appellant Block-A, 3Rd Floor, Room No.24, 1, Chandni Chowk Street, Princep Street, Kolkata – 700072. [Pan:Aaafq4820G] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1),Kolkata.............…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri S. M. Surana, Advocate & Sunil Surana, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Cit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 02, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 03, 2024 Order Per Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2020-21Against The Order Dated 08.09.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Various Grounds Of Appeals Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition By Cit(A) Of Rs.14,82,41,932/- As Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 68 Of The Act R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. The Facts In Brief Are That The Assessee Filed Return Of Income On 09.01.2021 Declaring Total Income From Business & Profession At Rs.36,73,790/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass & Statutory Notices Were Duly Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. During The Assessment Proceedings, The Various Documents & Evidences Were Called For By The Assessing Officer From The Assessee

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the assessee fails to discharge the onus by producing cogent evidence and explanation, the A.O would be justified in making the additions back into the income of the assessee. V. The Guwahati High Court in Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT(2004/ 130Taxman 213/[2003] 264 ITR 254 held that merely because a transaction takes place by cheque is not sufficient to discharge the burden. The assessee has to prove the identity of the creditors and genuineness of he transaction. "It cannot be said that a transaction. which takes place by 7 I.T.A. No.472/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Quest Online way on Cheque, is invariably…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -23(1), Mumbai vs. Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3400/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…n following judicial decisions: following judicial decisions: (i) CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC) (ii) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) (iii) CIT Vs Precision Finance p L CIT Vs Precision Finance p Ltd (1995) 82 Taxman 31(Cal.) td (1995) 82 Taxman 31(Cal.) 7.6 The ld CIT(A) also also rejected the copy of invoices issued by the invoices issued by the ‘hawala’ dealers/operat…

Kalpsaru Diamonds, Mumbai vs. ACIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as In the result, the grounds raised by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3223/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Years: 2012-13 Kalpsaru Diamonds, Acit 23(2), Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Mumbai-400013. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent Assessment Years: 2012-13 Dy. Cit-23(1), Kalpsaru Diamonds, Room No. 511, Fifth Floor, Jw 8040/250, Bharat Diamond Piramal Chambers, Parel, Vs. Bourse, Bkc, Bandra East, Lalbaugh-400012. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aaafk 6960 H Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Mr. Ajay Singh
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69C

…n following judicial decisions: following judicial decisions: (i) CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR CIT Vs P Mohan Kala & Other others (2007) 291 ITR 278(SC) (ii) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) Nemichand Kothari vs CIT(2003)264 ITR 254(Gugrat) (iii) CIT Vs Precision Finance p L CIT Vs Precision Finance p Ltd (1995) 82 Taxman 31(Cal.) td (1995) 82 Taxman 31(Cal.) 7.6 The ld CIT(A) also also rejected the copy of invoices issued by the invoices issued by the ‘hawala’ dealers/operat…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1161/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Years: 2011-12 Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 6, Waterloo Street, Kolkata- Vs. 3(3), Kolkata. 700069. (Pan: Aaecs5627C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 68

…as well as the reliance on various decisions with respect to the true nature of section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.” v). In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as well as the reliance on various decisions with respect to the true nature of section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.” v). In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1438/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as well as the reliance on various decisions with respect to the true nature of section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.” v). In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'…

Silkina Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1437/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Mar 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Siddarth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…as well as the reliance on various decisions with respect to the true nature of section 68, we are of the opinion that no question of law arises; the appeals are accordingly dismissed.” v). In the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 [2003] 264 ITR 254, the Hon'ble Guwahati High Court has thrown light on another aspect touching the issue of onus on assessee under section 68, by holding that the same should be decided by taking into consideration the provision of section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that a person can be required to prove only such facts which are in his knowledge. The Hon'…

ITO 28 (1)(1), Mumbai vs. Gahlot Construction, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue & CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/MUM/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran, Am & Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/S. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ Ito-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3Rd Floor, Vashi Complex, Sector-10, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400703. Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400703. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofm5698J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Ritika Agarwal Revenue By: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/02/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue; & The Assessee Has Filed A Cross Objection (Co) Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Dated 30.10.2021 For The Ay. 2008-09. 2. The Main Grievance Of The Revenue Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Deleting The Addition Of Rs.5 Cr Which Was Added By The

For Appellant: Ms. Ritika AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Raj Singh Meel (Sr. AR)
Section 132Section 139Section 147Section 151Section 153CSection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, AM AND SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T. A. No. 2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) ITO-28(1)(1) बिधम/ M/s. Gahlot Construction Room No. 329, Tower No. Plot No-28A, Gahlot Vs. 6, 3rd Floor, Vashi Railway Complex, Sector-10, Station, Navi Mumbai- Nerul, Navi Mumbai- 400703. 400703. Cross Objection No. 82/Mum/2023 Arising out of I.T.A. No.2475/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) M/s. Gahlot Construction बिधम/ ITO-28(1)(1) Plot No-28A, Gahlot Room No. 329, Tower Vs. No. 6, 3rd Floor, Vashi Com…

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

…bonafide explanation offered with documentary evidences, deserve to be deleted and the assessee prays accordingly. Reliance is placed on the following:- 1. CIT v. U.M. Shah, Proprietor, Shrenik Trading Co. [1973] 90 ITR 396 (Bom.) 2. Nemichand Kothari v. CIT (264 ITR 254)(Gau) 3. Divine Leasing ete Vs. CIT 299 ITR 268 (DEL) 4. 34 ITR 328 (MAD) & Ker HC in 117 ITR 371 5. Shri Vishnu Prasad, Jaipur vs DCIT (ITAT JPR) in ITA 1503/JP/2018 dated 15.02.2021 We also find it relevant to quote from letter dated 16.10.2023 (copy enclosed with this submission) issued to the assessee from the office of the Principal Chief Co…

Shri Praveen Gupta, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3189/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshshri Praveen Gupta, Vs. Acit, D-101, First Floor, Tower Circle-2, No. D, Caitriona Meerut Residential Apartment Complex, Ambience Island, Gurgoan-22001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Acjpg4777H Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 12/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/02/2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardha, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 68

…dshahar v/s Smt. Raj Rani. In the said order the Hon'ble ITAT relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v/s Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd 52 CTR 138 and the judgment of Hon'bleGauhati High Court in the case of Nemi Chand Kothari v/s CIT 264 ITR 254 wherein it has been held that the assessee is not required to prove the source of source from which the creditors has advance to assessee. Therefore when the assessee has proved the identity and genuineness of the transaction and the lenders are assessed to tax the credit worthiness and there source on giving loans is not material as per the deci…

Udayan Grover, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2880/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleudayan Grover V. National Faceless Appeal Centre Panch Mahal Delhi Panch Sristhi Complex {Acit – 26(3), Bkc, Mumbai} Powai, Mumbai - 400072 Pan: Aclpg0572G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 57Section 68

…der Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were also recorded on oath. There was no clinching evidence and the AO has further failed to prove that the loans are nothing but income in the hands of appellant. In the case of NEMI CHAND KOTHARI v. C.I.T. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gauhati) it was held by the Gauhati High Court as under: “A person may have funds from any source and an assessee, on such information received, may take a loan from such a person. It is not the business of the assessee to find out whether the source or sources from which the creditor had agreed to advance the amounts were genuine or not. If a c…

M/S Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Mumbai

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2848/MUM/2023[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/S. Jr Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash SinghFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR)
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2848/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2009-10) M/s. JR Fiber Glass Industries Pvt. Ltd. बनाम / National Faceless Appeal Vs. ACIT-Circle-4(3)(1) Centre Room No. 649, M. K. Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAACJ6312K (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Satyaprakash Singh Revenue by: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (Sr. AR) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing: 24/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/01…

M/S. Bmm Ispat Limited, Hospet vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 381/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234BSection 250Section 68Section 92C

…ITA No.381/Bang/2023 M/s. BMM Ispat Limited, Bellary IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K., VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2016-17 BMM Ispat Limited 114, Danapur Village Hospet Taluk ACIT Bellary 583 201 Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Karnataka Bangalore PAN NO : AACCB3556B APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri K.R. Pradeep & Ms. Giriji G.P., A.Rs Revenue by : Shri Senthil Kumar N., D.R. Date of Hearing : 18.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assess…

Divyamala Prakash, Guwahati vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tezpur

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

ITA 70/GTY/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati29 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2016-17 Divyamala Prakash Ito, Ward-1, Tezpur Flat No. 6A, Syndicate Marble, Six Vs. Mile Radhanagar, Guwahati-784036. Pan: Bpmpp 6934 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Arun Bhowmick, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 02.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.01.2020 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) -1, Guwahati [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’].

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Bhowmick, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…ase of Orient Trading Co. vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom). The above judgment of ITAT, stands confirmed by High Court in DCIT vs Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) Shree Nemi Chand Kothari vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Assam in the Gauhati High Court – 264 ITR 254 (Gau) At para -14: 7 Divyamala Prakash A.Y. 2016-17 “It, therefore, further logically follows that the creditor’s credit-worthiness has to be judged vis-à-vis the transaction which have taken place between the assessee to find out the source of money of his creditor and/or credit- worthiness of the sub-creditor for these aspects may not be with…

Chetan Bipinbhai Bha vs. Ar, Suratvs.Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Bardoli

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 620/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Surat27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.620/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Chetan Bipinbhai Bhavsar Income Tax Officer, 304, Monalisha Complex, Vs. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Shastri Road, Bardoli– Office Aaykar Bhavan, Station 394601 Road, Bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Anjpb 0949 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT (SMC) BENCH BEFORE SHRI DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.620/SRT/2023 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Physical Hearing) Chetan Bipinbhai Bhavsar Income Tax Officer, 304, Monalisha Complex, Vs. Ward-2, Bardoli, Income Tax Shastri Road, Bardoli– Office Aaykar Bhavan, Station 394601 Road, bardoli-394601 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ANJPB 0949 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant by Shri Kiran K Shah, CA िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवा ई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 20/10/2023 घोषणा की त…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cir - 1(3), Surat vs. Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 375/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ted that it is settled law that addition made under section 68 cannot be made if source-of-source is not explained. To support such view, the assessee relied upon various decisions including Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 9 ITA Nos. 257 & 375/SRT/2023 (A.Y 18-19) Rajgreen Infralink LLP 8. For the addition of Rs.27.72 crores, the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer grossly erred in making such addition under section 68. The fact relating to said transaction is that assessee has given advance to Rameshwaram Developers in the year under consideration i…

Rajgreen Infralink LLP, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(3), Surat

In the result, the ground No

ITA 257/SRT/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.257 & 375/Srt/2023 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Rajgreen Infralink Llp Deputy Commissioner Of 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha Nagar, Income Tax, Circle-1(3) Nr. Choksi Wadi, New Rander Road, Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, Adajan, Surat-395009 Majura Gate, Surat-395001 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Rajgreen Infralink Llp Vs Tax, Circle-1(3), Surat, Room No. 29-30, Sai Baba Shraddha 301, 3Rd Floor, Anavil Business Nagar, Nr. Choksi Wadi, Centre, Hazira Road, Adajan, New Rander Road, Adajan, Surat-395009 Surat-395009 Pan No. Aavfr 8064 N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…ted that it is settled law that addition made under section 68 cannot be made if source-of-source is not explained. To support such view, the assessee relied upon various decisions including Hon’ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Nemichand Kothari vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 (Gau). 9 ITA Nos. 257 & 375/SRT/2023 (A.Y 18-19) Rajgreen Infralink LLP 8. For the addition of Rs.27.72 crores, the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer grossly erred in making such addition under section 68. The fact relating to said transaction is that assessee has given advance to Rameshwaram Developers in the year under consideration i…

ITO, Ward, Phalodi vs. M/S Rama Allure LLP, Jodhpur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 135/JODH/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur09 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: The Date, The Appeal Is Finally Heard.”

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR VIRTUAL HEARING BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Income Tax Officer Vs Rama Allure LLP Ward, Phalodi, 98, Krishna Nagar, Jodhpur Pal Road, Jodhpur (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN NO. AAZFR 4837 P Assessee By Sh. Amit Kothari, C.A. & Sh. Ajay Moondra Revenue By Sh. Lovish Kumar, CIT Date of hearing 14/07/2023 Date of 09/10/2023 Pronouncement O R D E R PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by revenue and is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre dated 28.02.2023 [here in a…

Manohar Singh, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Jodhpur

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

ITA 159/JODH/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur04 Oct 2023AY 2013-14
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(b)

…accounts are relevant and are prima facie proof of the entries and the correctness thereof under s. 34 of the Evidence Act, and the entry therein is prima facie proof that the amount in question was deposit stands.  Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT & Anr. (2003) 264 ITR 254 (Gau) A person may have funds from any source and an assessee, on such information received, may take loan from such a person. It is not the business of the assessee to find out whether the source or sources from which the creditor had agreed to advance the amounts were genuine or not. If a creditor has, by any undisclosed source, a particular am…

M/S Aadhi Enterprises Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 308/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 308/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Aadhi Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., The Acit, No.1-130, Perambur Barracks V. Central Circle-3(1), Road, Pattalam, Chennai. Chennai – 600 112. Pan: Aanca 0382P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Shri S. Neelakantan, Fca Shri Shrenik Chordia, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.07.2023 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2023

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…d that, "if no explanation offered" means, no proper, unreasonable or unacceptable explanation given as regards the sum found credited in the books maintained by the assessee. Similally, Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in the case of Mr Nemi Chand Kothari Vs. CIT 264 ITR 254 held that transactions made by cheque is not sufficient to discharge burden. Further, the assessee though, they had filed confirmations, are sham transactions and make-believe with excellent paper work to camouflage their bogus nature as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters P Ltd - ITA No.49/2018 dated 17.01.2019…