( Northern Bengal Jute Mills Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

70 ITR 407High Court1968#8157 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 147 Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148 Section 14A Section 250 Section 68

Issues it is cited on

rule 46a section 133(6)unexplained money genuineness of the transaction unexplained cash credit section 68 previous year section 143(2)company section 144 section 148 transfer

Judgments citing ( Northern Bengal Jute Mills Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT

NISHANT PAREKH - LEGAL HEIR OF MINA PAREKH,JAMNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), JAMNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 196/RJT/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 196/Rjt/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: (2012-13) Nishant Parekh – Legak Heir Of Mina Income Tax Officer, Wd – 1(3), Parekh Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, 322, Madhav Square, Opp. Avantika Jamnagar – 361001 Complex, Limda Lane Road, Jamnagar – 361001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aanpp9471F (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 250

…and suspicious, which is not acceptable. In holding a particular receipt as income from undisclosed sources, the faith of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicious and probabilities, Northern Bengal Jute Co. Ltd Vs CIT 70 ITR 407 (Cal).Hence, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer in any manner and hence the addition so made is deleted. Hence this summarised and concise ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed. 14. In the combined result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 13/10/2025. (DINESH MOHAN…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ESPLANADE vs. JODHRAJ FINASSIST PRIVATE LIMITED, PRINCE BAKTIAR SHAH ROAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…nly on doubts, suspicions, surmises and conjectures which is not permitted in law. I.T.A. Nos.: 1309 & 1310/KOL/2023 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited. Reliance in this regard is placed on the following judicial decisions:- 70 ITR 407 (Cal.) Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co, Ltd. Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Calcutta High Court held as under:- "The fate of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicions or probabilities." 37 ITR 288(SC) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT In this case Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Assessment of income…

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, ESPLANADE vs. JODHRAJ FINASSIST PRIVATE LIMITED, PRINCE BAKTIAR SHAH ROAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 (1), JALANDHAR vs. SHRI ANIL KUMAR WASON, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 164/ASR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar09 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 164/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…T (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) In holding a particular receipt as income from undisclosed source, the fate of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicions or probabilities [Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. V. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR 407, 415 (Cal)j.The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also explained a number of cases that once the assessee furnishes explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit money the AO is not entitled to reject unreasonably simply on the ground that the particular provided are "unconvincing and deserve to be rejected". The AO can reject the particular p…

LOKENATH INVESTMENT CONSULTANTS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1097/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR

Section 139Section 148Section 153ASection 153C

…ITR 63, 14 Lokenath Investment Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re- rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481.” 5. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the judgments in the case of CIT Vs. M/s N.R. Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. dated 21.12.2012 (Del. HC), Onassis Axles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA 31/2013 (Del. HC), CIT Vs. Nipun Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. and CIT Vs. Nova Promoters & Finlease (P) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Del.) aff…

ITO, NCW - 3 (4),, CHENNAI vs. MS. KAVITHA SIDDAREDDY,, CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrimanjunatha.G, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.160/Chny/2020 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 V. The Income Tax Officer, Ms.Kavithasiddareddy, Non-Corporate Ward-3(4), No.7/1, Surabhi, Chennai. Sriram Nagar, North Street, Opp. To Frontline Eye Hospital, Alwarpet, Chennai-600 018. [Pan:Aeppk 0880 D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr.Ar.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit. : Assessee By Mr.D.Anand, Adv : सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing 11.05.2023 : घोषणाक"तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 14.06.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manjunatha.G:

For Respondent: Mr.AR.V.Sreenivasan

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…irrelevant and opposed to the facts obtaining from the record and the fate of the appellant could not be decided by the AO on mere surmises or probabilities which appears strongly in the instant case (Northern Bengal Jute Mills Trading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 407). 11. I am also in agreement with the AR's submission that in the context of the provisions of Section 69C one has to keep in mind the legal maxim -"lex non cojitadimpossibila" which means, that the law does not compel a person to do that which he cannot possibly perform. The burden of proof can seldom be discharged to the hilt by the assessee and…

ROOPAM SAREES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(1), SURAT

In the result, ground no.3 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.272/Srt/2022 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Physical Hearing) Roopam Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1), Plot No.55, Jay Krishna Mill, Gidc Surat. Pandesara, Surat-395002. (Appellant) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr9748N

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 69C

…t accepting these evidences. In holding a particular receipt or expense as income from undisclosed sources, the faith of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicious and probabilities, [Northern Bengal Jute Co. Ltd Vs CIT 70 ITR 407 (Cal).]. Based on these facts and circumstances we delete the addition of Rs.28,39,684/-. 15. In the result, ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed. 16. In Grounds no. 3 assessee has raised the grievance stating that ld CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.41,57,192/- being 20% of total job work expenses of Rs.2,07,85,960/-. Roopam Sarees…

SHRI PATEL ENTERPRISES,,KORBA(CG) vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- KORBA,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose in terms of our observations as discussed herein above

ITA 112/BIL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अऩीऱ सं./Ita No.112/Rpr/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/S Patel Enterprises, Vs Dcit, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) Pan No. : Aajfm 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 251

…आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, रायऩुर न्यायऩीठ, रायऩुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR श्री रविश सूद, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री अरुण खोड़वऩया, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ITA No.112/RPR/2017 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-2013) M/s Patel Enterprises, Vs DCIT, Circle-Korba A-3, Vikas Complex, First Floor, Power House Road, Korba (C.G.) PAN No. : AAJFM 0718 Q (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, CA राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by : Shri P.K.Mishra, CIT-DR सुनिाई की तार…

ITO, NEW DELHI vs. SH. SUNIL NAYYAR, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and Cross

ITA 6168/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Kuldip Singhdr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6168/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Ward-49(3), R/O 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, New Delhi Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abvpn3963B

For Appellant: Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 68

…T (1963) 49 ITR 723 (Bom.) In holding a particular receipt as income from undisclosed source, the fate of the assessee cannot be decided by the revenue on the basis of surmises, suspicions or probabilities [Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. V. CIT, (1968) 70 ITR 407, 415 (Cal)]. 35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also explained a number of cases that once the assessee furnishes explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit money the AO is not entitled to reject unreasonably ITA No. 6168/Del/2016 & 43 CO No. 9/Del/2017 Sunil Nayyar and simply on the ground that the particular provided are "uncon…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 233/BIL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.232 To 235/Rpr/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar

Section 132

…pugned estimated addition, were extraneous, irrelevant and opposed to the facts obtaining from the record. The fate of the appellant could not be decided by the AO on mere surmises or probabilities ( Northern Bengal Jute Mills Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT ( 1968) 70 ITR 407 (Cal.). The mere existence of reasons for suspicion would not tantamount to evidence ( Cal. HC in Narayan Chandra Baidya Vs. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 (Cal.) 7.58. It is indeed a case of frivolous addition with facts identical to the facts in the case of Bharti Airtel Limited Vs. ACIT (ITAT Delhi). Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as…

D.C.I.T. CENTRAL CRICLE,, RAIPUR vs. MAHAMAYA STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD, RAIPUR

In the result, cross objections preferred by the assessee in CO

ITA 232/BIL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Nov 2019AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar

Section 132

ITO, WD-2(1), SILIGURI, DARJEELING vs. M/S MEGASUN MERCHANTS PVT. LTD., SILIGURI

ITA 1038/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.1038/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT Sr. DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…by these share subscribers hence he proved the genuineness and identity of the transactions.Therefore, the ld counsel cited before us, the following judgementsViz: S Hastimal vs CIT (1963) 49 ITR 273 (Mad), Northern Bengal Jute Trading Company vs. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 407 (Cal), CIT vs Stellar Investments Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 287 : (2001) 251 ITR 263 (SC), CIT vs Lovely Exports Pvt Ltd (2008) 216 CTR195 (SC), CIT vs Dataware Pvt Ltd, ITAT No 263 of 2011, GA No 2856 of 2011 dated 21.09.2011. The sum and substance of all these judgments are that if the assesseehad discharged its onus to prove the identity, credit…

SRI. SURESH KUMAR,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

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

ITA 1281/BANG/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raoassessment Year : 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwala, Jt. CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…shown by Dr. V. Suresh Kumar. The assessee has not proved the credit worthiness of the Creditors and genuineness of the transaction. • Merely producing a letter from a third party, the assessee could not be said to have discharged the initial onus cash on it. 70 ITR 407(Cal) • Merely identifying the creditor does not discharge the burden. What is further required is sufficient evidence to show that the entry found in the books of account of the assessee is genuine. • Merely establishing identity of creditor is not enough. The assessee Co., failed to prove genuineness: of cash credit and genuineness of the transac…

M/S. RAJSADAN OVERSEAS SALES(P)LTD,SILIGURI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1076/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Sept 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: Shri Subhas Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amitabha Choudhury, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

…107 ITR 938, C. Kant & Co. Vs. CIT (Cal) 126 ITR 63, Bharat P. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 111 ITR 951, Dhanalakshmi Steel Re-rolling Mills Vs. CIT (AP) 228 ITR 780, Prakash Textile Agency Vs. CIT (Cal) 121 ITR 890, Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (Cal) 70 ITR 407, Sanil K.M.P. Vs. CIT (Ker) 177 Taxman 481 etc. It is also a fact that mere filing of Income Tax file number or PAN is not enough to prove genuineness of cash credit as held in CIT Vs. Korlay Trading Co. Ltd. (Cal) 232 ITR 820. Further, cash credit can be assessed even if transaction is through cheques as held in CIT Vs. Precision Finance P. Ltd (…