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

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

…198 Taxman 385 (Del) • CIT Vs. Winner Constructions (P) Ltd. in ITA No. 796/2011(Del) dt. 03/05/2012 • Lunar Electricals Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 195/2006(Del) dt. 22/03/2012 • Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 (SC) • Omar Salay Mohammad Sait Vs. CIT 37 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) Lt…

Dy CIT 11 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Varesh Securities Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 262/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 262/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 263/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11) Dcit-11(3)(1) बिधम/ Varesh Securities Pvt. Ltd. Room No.427, Aayakar 101, Laxmi Plaza, Laxmi Vs. Bhavan, M. K. Road, Marine Industrial Estate, New Link Lines, Mumbai-400020. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai-400053. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacg1667L (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Revenue By: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. Ar) Assessee By: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 12/07/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/10/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Above Mentioned Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 25.10.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Ys.2010-11 & 2012-13. Ita. Nos.262 & 263/Mum/2020 A.Ys. 2012-13 & 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Sashi TulsiyanFor Respondent: Ms. Usha Gaikwad (Sr. AR)
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 148Section 68

…ss specific evidence is brought on record to controvert the validity and correctness of the documentary evidences produced, the same Cannot be rejected by the appellant. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait v CIT reported in (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{(Central), Kolkata vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull reported in 87 ITR 349, the Hon'ble Supreme Court heid 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…

Pawan Kumar Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 202/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 201/IND/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Manish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 200/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Ashish Chhaparia, Mumbai vs. ITO Burhanpur, Burhanpur

Appeal is allowed

ITA 199/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manish Borad& Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 147oSection 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos.199/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12) Ashish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawa, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall, Malad East, Burhanpur-450331 Mumbai-400097 PAN No.ABMPC4542L (Appellant) (Respondent) .. I.T.A. Nos.200&201/Ind/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Manish Chhaparia Vs. ITO 1703B, Aster Tower, Near Aaykar Bhawan, Vibhgyor School, Opposite Station Road, Oberoi Mall,…

Brace Iron & Steel P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Special Range-2, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed

ITA 8617/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Lakshya Budhira, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Satpal Gulati, CIT-DR

…the same cannot be rejected by the Revenue. 7.6.17. For the above proposition, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee relied on the following decisions : Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of 1. Omar Salay Mohammed Salt vs., CIT reported in [1959] 37 ITR 151 [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs., Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 2. [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. vs., CIT reported in [1959] 3. 37 ITR 271 [SC] Judgment of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs., Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co. 4. Limited in ITA.No.2…

Darshan Kumar Pahwa, Indore vs. DCIT Circle5(1), Indore

ITA 987/IND/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Manish Govind Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. I T O 2(1), Indore

ITA 61/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Govind Harinarayan Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. I T O 2(1), Indore

ITA 60/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Sapan Shah, Indore vs. ACIT-4(I), Indore

ITA 474/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Prayank Jain, Indore vs. ACIT5(1), Indore

ITA 206/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Shiv Narayan Sharma, Indore vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Indore

ITA 889/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69C

…a fundamental rule of justice and established legal proposition that there may be something more than bare suspicion, to support the findings, in the assessment order, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of – a. Omar Salav Mohamed Sait – [1959] 37 ITR 151 b. Umacharan Shah & Bros – [1959] 37 ITR 271 15. In the instant case, Sunrise Asian Limited (the amalgamated company) is neither included in the list of Shell Companies nor has been struck off from the…

Jagdish B. Prajapati (HUF), Mumbai vs. ACIT-24(2), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 548/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.548/Mum/2019 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Jagdish B. Prajapati (Huf) Acit-24(2) बनाम/ 6Th Floor, Piramal Chambers 311B, Urmila Chs Ltd., Kol Dongri Sahar Road, Andheri (E) Lalbaug, Parel Vs. Mumbai – 400 069 Mumbai - 400012 Pan No. : Aaehj-9503-P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Ms. Usha Gaikwad – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 03/05/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 17/06/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

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

…V/s ACIT (387 ITR 561). 7.5 The proposition that that additions made purely 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 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…

The ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue ( in ITA Nos

ITA 1161/AHD/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, CAFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…f land in concern which was sold. ITA.1159 to 1161AHD/2012 AYs.2004-05 to 2006-07 Narendrabhai P. Patel Therefore, AO made addition purely on surmises and conjecture. We note that 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…

The ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue ( in ITA Nos

ITA 1160/AHD/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, CAFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…f land in concern which was sold. ITA.1159 to 1161AHD/2012 AYs.2004-05 to 2006-07 Narendrabhai P. Patel Therefore, AO made addition purely on surmises and conjecture. We note that 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…

The ITO, Ward-9(3), Surat vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue ( in ITA Nos

ITA 1159/AHD/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jun 2021AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.1159 To 1161/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2004-05 To 2006-07) (Virtual Court Hearing) The Ito, Ward-9(4), Vs. Shri Narendra Premjibhai Patel, Surat. Survey No.6, Mangalwadi, Opp. Geb, Varachha Road, Surat-395 006. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aigpp1584Q (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Hiren M. Diwan, CAFor Respondent: Shri O. P. Vaishnav, CIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…f land in concern which was sold. ITA.1159 to 1161AHD/2012 AYs.2004-05 to 2006-07 Narendrabhai P. Patel Therefore, AO made addition purely on surmises and conjecture. We note that 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…

Smt. Mamta Nyati Dhamnod Distt. Dhar, Dhamnod vs. ITO Dhar, Dhar

In the result appeals of the assessee(s) namely Kumari

ITA 488/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon'Ble Manish Borad & Hon'Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year:2014-15 Kumari Ayushi Nyati Ito, 5(5) 10, Balaji Vihar, 1-2, Maa Durg Indore बनाम/ Nagar, Navlakha Main Road 1 To Vs. 7, Indore (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Ajppn2679C Assessment Year:2014-15 Smt. Vijaya Nyati, Ito, Dhar 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road बनाम/ Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. Vs. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aappn8302B Assessment Year:2014-15 Shri Vijay Kumar Radheshyam Ito, Dhar Nyati, Huf बनाम/ 5 Nyati House, Mandi Road Vs. Dhammod, Dist: Dhar M.P. (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aachv4415Q

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 133A

…statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). 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). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on reco…

Smt. Shweta Agrawal, Indore vs. The ACIT 5(1), R-5, Indore

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

ITA 281/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). 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). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on reco…

M/S. Sanjay Onkarmal Agrawal HUF, Indore vs. The ITO-5(3) Range-5, Indore

In the result ground raised on merit as well as legal ground raised for not

ITA 279/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royvirtual Hearing Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…statement without there being any tangible material. It is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicious, conjectures or surmises could not be sustained in the eyes of law as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V/s CIT (1959 37 ITR 151). 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). Therefore, we find that onus as caster upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on reco…