Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

37 ITR 151Supreme Court of India1959#197 most cited

What is Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT authority for?

An income tax assessment or addition cannot be made based solely on suspicion, surmises, or conjectures. The income tax department requires evidence or material to justify an addition, as suspicion, however strong, does not constitute proof.

372

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT · 37 ITR 151 · suspicion not proof · assessment without evidence · no addition on conjecture · surmises and suspicion · sections 143(3) 147 68 · income tax assessment evidence · burden of proof income tax · evidentiary value

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 132(4)Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 153ASection 142(1)Section 68

Issues it is cited on

price riggingthird party informationbogus long term capital gaindumb documentsbogus ltcgsection 132(4a)penny stocksection 10(38)rejection of books of accountloose paperslong term capital gainssection 34

Judgments citing Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT

Fathimuthu Amma Mills Limited, Nanguneri vs. ACIT, CC-1, Madurai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 118/CHNY/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69A

…d on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram [2006] I.T.A. Nos.118 to 123/Chny/2021 7 155 Taxman 454. He further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT, 37 ITR 151. He also argued that the proportion of cotton waste generated upon the total sales made during the relevant assessment year is at par with the industry standards and the rate adopted by the assessee is at par with the then prevailing market rate for sale of cotton waste which has not been doubted or disputed by the AO. According to him, the AO has…

ITO -32(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Liberal Realtors Limited Liability Partnership, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for A

ITA 450/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2022AY 2015-16
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…e assessee. It is submitted that the overwhelming documentary and circumstantial evidence has to be considered and not mere suspicion and preponderance of probabilities. It is submitted that the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Omar Sa/ay Mohamed Salt (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros, v C.I.T. (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that suspicion however strong, cannot take place of evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT (Central) Kolkata v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull report…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 237/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT, Central Circle-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 236/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. The Dy CIT-CC-4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1336/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 621/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Smt. Shruti Lodha, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 620/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Shri. Shripal Raj Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 619/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Smt. Sarita Lodha, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 4(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

ITA 618/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Garg
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(3)

…sessee. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Kavita Pawan Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7931/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1139-A (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7931/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Kavita Pawan Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman…

Heena Nilesh Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7930/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7930/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Heena Nilesh Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8463-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Ms. Heena Nilesh Kikavat Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7930/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Heena Nilesh Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E) Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman P…

Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7928/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7928/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7929/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building / Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6316-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Shri Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7928/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7929/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Jitendra Vasantlal Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम 1915, 19t…

Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7927/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7927/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6311-R (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Shri Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7927/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Pawan Vasantlal Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077…

Beena Jitendra Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7926/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7926/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agfpk-4477-Q (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7926/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Beena Jitendra Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nar…

Akshita Pankaj Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7925/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aggpk-1141-G (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat Assessment Year: 2012-13 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7925/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ms. Akshita Pankaj Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nar…

Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7923/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-2207-J (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7923/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7924/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Nilesh Vasantlal Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th f…

Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikvat Through L/H Pankaj V Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7921/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7921/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7922/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), 1915, 19Th Floor (Through L/H Shri Pankaj V.Kikavat) बिाम/ 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Air India Building Vs. Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Nariman Point Mumbai-400 077 Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aabpk-6317-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 68

…ely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law stem from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay 14 Shri Vasantlal Nyalchand Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151) wherein it was held that the suspicion however strong could not partake the character of legal evidence as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umacharan Shaw & Bros. V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 271). The additions made on mere presumptions could not be sustained and there must be something more than mere suspicion to support the assessment as per the decis…

Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 3 (4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7919/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Dcit-Cc 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19Th Floor 1201, D-Wing, Kukreja Towers, Garodiya Nagar, Ghatkopar (E), Air India Building Vs. Mumbai-400 077 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थािीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-8464-F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 22/11/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad– Ld. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…1 Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “एफ ” न्यायपीठ म ुंबई में। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI माननीय श्री अमरजीत स िंह, न्यासिक दस्य एविं माननीय श्री मनोज कुमार अग्रवाल ,लेखा दस्य के मक्ष। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (Hearing through Video Conferencing Mode) 1. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7919/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आिकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. Nos.7920/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Pankaj Vasantlal Kikavat DCIT-CC 3(4), बिाम/ 1915, 19th f…

Rakesh Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO-18(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri B.V. Jhaveri, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Raghuveer Madana, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 68

…e. Unless specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same cannot be rejected by the assessee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent is not the real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction t…

Neelachal I.Nigam L vs. Asst.Comnr.of I.Tax

ITA/8/2005HC Orissa17 Nov 2021

Bench: DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR (CJ),MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

Section 143(1)(a)

…ve been recorded the same should not have been interfered. (viii) Further reference is made to the decision to the decision rendered by the High Court of Bombay in the matter of Bharatkumar Modi (supra) to submit that when the proper 2 (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 3 (2001) 165 CTR (All) 565 = (2000) 246 ITR 560 (All) 4 (2000) 164 CTR (Bom) 273 = (2000) 246 ITR 693 (Bom) = (2000) 113 TAXMAN 386 (Bom) 12 ITA No.6 of 2005 & other connected matters opportunity of hearing has been given to the assessee the entire annulment of assessment cannot be justified and even if certain wrong is committed the entir…