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

DCIT - CC - 8 (1), Mumbai vs. Mahendra Balkrishan Mittal, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3967/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Mar 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahendra B Mittal Income Tax, A-403, Meghdoot Apartment Central Circle 8 (1) Raheja Township, Malad(E) Mumbai Mumbai – 400 097 Pan/Gir No. Aebpm1654H (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(3)

…of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1977 SC 796  Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 • CIT v. K Mahim Udmaf20001158 CTR (Ker.) 100:12000] 242 ITR133(Ker.) • Dhakeshwari Cotton Mitts Ltd. v. CIT(1954 26ITR 775 (SC) • Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT(1959)37 ITR 151 (SC) • Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [20081118TTJ 228 :12008] 11 DTR (Delhi X Trib.) 281. • DhirajLalGirdhanLalVs.CJT26ITR736 • Lalehand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs. CIT 37ITR288 9.16 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mitts v. CIT [1954J 26 ITR 775 at 782 observed; 7 Shri Mahendra B Mittal "As regards the second contention, we ar…

M.Kiran Kumar, Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3374/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Mar 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri G.Baskar, Advocate
Section 10(38)Section 133ASection 2(22)(e)

…im of assessee cannot be discarded, unless specific evidences are brought on record to controvert voluminous evidences filed by the assessee. This view is fortified by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151(SC) where it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT vs. Daulat Ram Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC) it was held that the onus to prove 60 I.T.A. No.3374/CHNY/2019 that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. 9.9 The assessee has submitted some additional documents…

DCIT CC 8(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Jainam Investments, Mumbai

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

ITA 4474/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2021AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Suchek Anchaliya (AR)For Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 e CIT v. K Mahim Udma [2000] 158 CTR (Ker.) 100 : [2000] 242 ITR 133 (Ker.) ITA. Nos.4286 & 4474/Mum/2019 A.Ys. 2011-12 & 2016-17 Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) e Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TT] 228: [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi)(Trib.) 281. Dhiraj Lal Girdhari Lal Vs. CIT 26 ITR736 „° Lalehand Bhagat Ambika Ram Vs CIT 37ITR288 18.3 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sreelekha Banerjee v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 112 had held as under: “…….The very words "an undisclosed source” show that the…

M/S Shailesh Jain HUF, Mumbai vs. ITO 19 (3)(3), Mumbai

ITA 6068/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S. Shailesh Jain Huf, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No.Aaihs3182H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Smt. Kritika Rajendra Jain, Vs. Ito 19(3)(3), 2Nd Floor, 2405, Panchratna, Opera House, Matru Mandir Bldg., Mama Parmanand Marg, Grant Road, Charni Road, Mumbai-400 007 Mumbai-400 004 Pan/Gir No. Agspj9797K (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…e being any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that it is trite law that additions merely on the basis of suspicion, 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 ld AR submitted 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). 6.5. The ld AR submits that movement in prices of shares is governed by several factors without there being any nexus to the projects, projection etc and th…

Vinod L. Gadhiya, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC5(3), Mumbai

ITA 2785/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

Section 153A

…being any tangible material. The ld. AR submits that 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). 7.5. The ld AR submits that the Ld. AO has not made any allegation of commission payment and hence no addition u/s 69C of the Act was made. The ld AR submits that the assessee also…

Income Tax Officer 4(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Sajjan Kumar Bajoria, Mumbai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 7354/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7354/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Shri Sajjan Kumar Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2732-L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : & आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7355/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income Tax Officer-4(3)(3) Smt. Sushila Devi Bajoria बनाम/ Room No.637, 6Th Floor 384-B, Dabholkarwadi, 3Rd Floor Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Mumbai-400 020. Kalbadevi, Mumbai-400 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aiepb-2731-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/01/2021 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri Hariom Tulsiyani – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…h the assessee was adversely affected. The proposition that additions merely 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). In view of the forgoing, it could very well be said that onus casted upon Ld. AO to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary eviden…

Smt. Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel, Ankleshwar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 6/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…bility is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. To draw an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait 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 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…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 5/SRT/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…bility is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. To draw an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait 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 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…

Shri Nishant Kantilal Patel, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee (In ITA No

ITA 10/SRT/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat07 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.05 & 06/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Shri Nishantkantilal Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9, Uma Park Society, Near Uma Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Bhavan, Bharuch-393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amepp2505R (Assessee) (Respondent) Smt Muktabennishantbhai Patel, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 9-10, Patel Kubj, Uma Park Society, B/H Ward-2(2), Bharuch. Uma Bhavan, Old Nh No.8, Gidc, Zadeshwar, Ankleshwar -393002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Binpp5922N (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.07 & 10/Srt/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah -CAFor Respondent: Ms Anupama Singhla -Sr. DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…bility is being used as a vague and convenient medium for the department’s conjectures. To draw an adverse inference without any admissible evidence on record, is bad in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait 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 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…

Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai vs. Smt. Kalpana Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6962/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…which has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) merely on the surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee submits following decisions as under :- “a. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L…

Kalpna Mukesh Ruia, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6519/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2020AY 2012-13
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…which has been confirmed by learned CIT(A) merely on the surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In this regard learned Counsel of the assessee submits following decisions as under :- “a. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. b. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. 20 Rajesh Ruia Group of cases c. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L…

DCIT - CC- 6 (3), Mumbai vs. Shri Manoj M. Desai, Mumbai

In the result the revenues appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6301/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Making Addition, Despite The Fact That - A) The Assessee Has Never Made Any Request For Cross Examination During Assessment Proceeding & Thus Question Of Providing Of Opportunity Of Cross Examination Does Not Arise. B) Ld. Cit (A) Has Herself Mentioned That Shri Praveen Mishra Retracted His Statement Thereby Making Him Assessee'S Witness & Hence No Opportunity Of His Cross Examination Was Required Rather It Was Assessee'S Onus To Produce Him Before The Ao For Cross Examination.

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153ASection 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Ramlal Negi (JM) I.T.A. No. 6301/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) DCIT, Central Circle-6(3) Shri Manoj M. Desai Vs. Room No. 1926, 19th 204, Sahyadri Floor, Air India Building Neelkanth Vally Nariman Point Complex, 7th Road Mumbai-400 021. Rajawadi Mumbai-400 077. PAN : ABBPD2066K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Nishit Gandhi Department by Shri Deepakant Prasad Date of Hearing 29.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement 07.12.2020 O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya (AM) :- This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of Lea…

DCIT, Central Circle-3, Jaipur vs. Shri Rajendra Kumar Kedia, A-15, Shyam Nagar, Near Nadi Ka Phatak, Bainad Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur

ITA 909/JPR/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri B. K. Gupta (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)

…ion of Honible Rajasthan High Court in the case of DT Vs. R.Y. Durlabhji reported in 211-1TR-178 wherein at page 189, the Horn,le Court has observed as under: In Dhekeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Arnbica Ram V. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), it has clearly been held by the apex court that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. 25 Tax World 87 CIT V/s Rajendra Prasad Gupta (Raj. Hig…

DCIT, Circle- 8(1), New Delhi vs. Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5274/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR
Section 10ASection 115J

…5IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.5274 & 5275/Del/2017 Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 DCIT, Vs Ebix Software India Pvt. Ltd., Circle-8(1), 311, B-4/A, Vasundhara Enclave, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAACE9981H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate Revenue by : Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.07.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2020 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM: The above two appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders…

Abhishek Dhanotia, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer- 3(1), Indore

ITA 655/IND/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Sept 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 1Section 131Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 69

…Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC) b. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) d. Umacharan Shaw& Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC) e. Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [ITA No.655/Ind/2018] [Abhishek Dhanotia ] 15. Attention is also invited to the judgment in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla & Others [1998] 3 SCC 410 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had considered the evidentiary value of any loose sheets or diary found with the party where search was conducted, which can be u…

Dipesh Ramesh Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7648/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 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…

Ramesh Babulal Vardhan, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT CC 2 (2), Mumbau

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 7662/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

Section 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…

Shri Abhay Chordia, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 117/JPR/2019[A.Y- 2012-13,]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Apr 2020
For Appellant: Sh. M. L. Borad (Adv.)For Respondent: Ms Chanchal Meena (JCIT)

…submitted that Income tax Act 1961 as well as related laws never support the actions based on hypothetical grounds. In this regard the assessee rely on the following judgments: • Dharkeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 • Omar Salay Mohammed Vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 • Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 19. Without prejudice to above submissions and in the alternative, it was submitted that while making disallowance of expenses by adopting theory of “apportionment”, the AO has also included following expenses totalling to Rs.5,71,727/- which clearly and conspicuously have been exclusively incurred…

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member ITA 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 CO No. 09/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sunil Nayyar, Vs Income Tax Officer, R/o 81-A, Vikrant Enclave, Ward-49(3), Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ABVPN3963B Assessee by : Sh. Jagdish Ajmani, CA Revenue by : Sh. Saras Ku…

ITO, Ward- 6(1), New Delhi vs. Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 4282/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. H. S. Sidhudr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 4282/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, Vs M/S Chetan Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Ward-6(1), B-108, Swasthya Vihar, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110092 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacc2853J Assessee By : Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 04.02.2020

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Bhagwani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)

…are to be made on hard facts or on corroborative evidences and not on suspicions, presumptions and surmises. Ld. CIT(A) relied on the judhement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775(SC), Omar Salay Mohd. Salt vs. CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) where in it was held that there must be something more than mere suspicion in support of an assessment and mere suspicion cannot take the place for the purpose of passing an order of assessment. As all six entities who paid money to assessee had duly appeared and filed details required by…