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

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

…) 26 ITR 775 (SC). The significance of considering the evidences in favour and against the assessee was CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 emphasized by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 7.30 Undisputedly the appellant did furnish explanation on all the documents seized during the course of search, the explanation of the appellant was test checked with reference to the seized material, books of accounts , bills/invoices and other evidences placed on record and the explanation was found to be satisfactory and it is also a matt…

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

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

…) 26 ITR 775 (SC). The significance of considering the evidences in favour and against the assessee was CO Nos.32 to 35/RPR/2015 A.Ys. 2009-10 to 2012-13 emphasized by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) 7.30 Undisputedly the appellant did furnish explanation on all the documents seized during the course of search, the explanation of the appellant was test checked with reference to the seized material, books of accounts , bills/invoices and other evidences placed on record and the explanation was found to be satisfactory and it is also a matt…

Akzo Nobel India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-10(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 621/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 92

…e ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO is bad and void ab initio. For that, he relied on the following precedents: i) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); 10 Akzo Nobel India Ltd., AY 2012-13 ii) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) and iii) State of Orissa Vs. Maharaja Shri B. P. Singh Deo (1970) 76 ITR 690 (SC). The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has its policy of giving the cash discount and publicity and advertisement expenses from past several years and the assessee has claimed cash discount expenses and publicity and advertisement expenses in preceding…

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

ITA 3429/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…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. 71 | P a g e 3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent…

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

ITA 3428/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…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. 71 | P a g e 3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent…

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

ITA 3427/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…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. 71 | P a g e 3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent…

Shri. Mahendra B Mittal HUF, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT Central Circle-8(1), Mumbai

ITA 3426/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…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. 71 | P a g e 3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent…

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

ITA 3314/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3429/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3428/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3427/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Shri Vijayrattan Balkrishan Mittal A-403, Meghdoot Apt., Raheja Township, ……………. Appellant Malad East, Mumbai-400 097 / अपीलाथी स्थायी लेखा िं /Pan – Akapm9809R V/S Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax …………….Respondent Central Circle-8(1), 6Th Floor, Room No. 679 / प्रत्यथााी Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3311/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2012-13) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3312/Mum/2019 (यिर्ाारण बर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील िं/ Ita No. 3313/Mum/2019

Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…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. 71 | P a g e 3427-3429/Mum/2019, 3311-3313/Mum/2019, 3426/Mum/2019, 3264&3265/Mum/2019, 3247&3248/Mum/2019 Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, the onus to prove that the apparent…

DCIT 5(1), Indore vs. Shri Mahesh Banasal, Indore

In the result both the appeals of the Revenue and Assessee

ITA 499/IND/2018[10-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2019

Bench: Hon'Ble Kul Bharat & Hon'Ble Manish Boradassessment Year 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri Mahesh Bansal, Income Tax 5(1), 44, Manish Bagh, Indore Agrawal Nagar, Indore

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…ri Cotton Mills Ltd vs, CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC); 11 Mahesh Bansal ITA No.499/2018 & C.O.No.10/Ind/2019 Umacharan Shaw& Bros. vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 271 (SC) & Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs, CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC) also applies to the facts and circumstances of the case because the adverse inference drawn by the AO was purely based on conjectures, surmises and suspicion and does not have sanction of law. The principal laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Central Bureau Of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla & Ors (1998) 3 SCC 410 (SC) is also applicable…

M/S.Geetanjali Space Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and that of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 782/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negiassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Dilip Lakhani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Raman, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…tate ofMadhya Pradesh:AIR 1977 SC 796 Jayadayal Poddar v. Mst. Bibi Hazra: AIR 1974 SC 171 CIT v. K Mahim Udma[2000] 158 CTR (Ker.) 100 : [2000] 242 ITR133(Ker.) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC) Omar Salay Mohamed Sail v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) Asstt. CIT v. Jindal Saw Pipes Ltd. [2008] 118 TTJ 228 : [2008] 11 DTR (Delhi) (Tri.) 281 21.10 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills v. CIT [1954] 26ITR 775 at 782 observed: "As regards the second contention, we are in entire agreement with the learned Solicitor-General when he says that the Income Tax Officer is not fettere…

Vijay Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 48(5), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of different assessees are partly allowed

ITA 1077/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 147Section 148Section 56(2)(vii)Section 68

…271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) at 782 (SC) ii) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT 37 ITR 151(SC) iii) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT, Bombay 26 ITR 736 (SC) iv) Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) v) Krishnand vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1977 SC 796 vi) Jayadayal Poddar vs. Mst Bibi Hazra AIR 1974 SC 171 vii) CIT vs. K. Mahim Udma 242 ITR 133 (Ker) 39. It is therefore submitted that the addition made by the learned AO and…

Smt.Geeta Khare, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-3, Kalyan

In the result, we see no merit in this Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs

ITA 4267/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri M. Balaganeshsmt. Geeta Khare A C I T, Circle – 3 4Th Floor, Siddhivinayak Arcade Kalyan Vs. Mahatma Phule Road Dombivali (W), Mumbai 421202 Pan – Ahopk7823N Appellant Respondent Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre (Huf) Income Tax Officer 4(4) B-5, Sai Garden Chs Ashar It Park Near Dhuri Service Centre Vs. Road No. 16Z, Midc Dewanman, Vasai (W) Thane (W) 400061 Mumbai 401202 Pan – Aauhs1747L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal Respondent By: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh Date Of Hearing: 05.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2019 O R D E R Per M. Balaganesh, Am These Appeals Filed By The Assessees Are Directed Against The Orders Of The Cit(A)-3, Nashik Dated 02.04.2018 & Cit(A)-3, Thane Dated 01.11.2017 Respectively & They Relates To The Assessment Year 2014-15. As Identical Issues Smt. Geeta Khare & Shri Shashikant B. Mhatre Are Involved In Both The Appeals, They Are Taken Up Together & Disposed Off By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Chaudhary Arunkumar Singh
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…

Rohit Jalan, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2205/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2205/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…espect, we take note of the observation made by the Coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of Navneet Agarwal Vs. ITO, Kolkata, ITA No. 2281/Kol/2017 dated 20.07.2018: “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…

Shri Gulbahar Singh, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Dasuya

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 335/ASR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 335/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…n, as emphasized time and again by the Apex Court, toward which reference may be made to some of its’ decisions, viz. CIT v. Radha Kishan Nandlal [1975] 99 ITR 143 (SC); CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC); Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC); Dhiraj Lal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736 (SC)). The same, accordingly, provides the frame-work under 3 Gulbahar Singh v. ITO which the question arising for determination – a matter of fact, is to be addressed and decided. The assessee’s case that the fair market value (fmv) is generally more than the stamp valuation, i.e., under the…

I.T.O. - 3(1)(3), Mumbai vs. Cosmos Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7150/MUM/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G Manjunatha () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ito, 3(1)(3), Mumbai Vs M/S Cosmos Realtors Pvt Ltd 112, Makers Chambers-Iii Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400 021 Pan : Aaccc6177F Appellant Respondednt

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 69B

…presumption cannot be sustained in law. This position is strongly supported by the following decisions of the Apex Court: a) CIT V Roman & Co (1968) 67 ITR 11 (SC) b) CIT v Calcutta Discount Co Ltd (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) c) Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs CIT 1959 37 ITR 151 (SC) d) Dhirajlal Girdharilal v CIT (26 ITR 734)(SC) 5.3,7 In view of the above, I find that there is no justification for presuming that on money of Rs. 5,59,30,0007- was made by the appellant. This ground of appeal is allowed.” 5. The Ld.DR submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate facts in right perspective while deleting addition mad…

M/S Bihari Lal Malpani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 43(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 527/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby. T. Varkey & Shri M. Balaganeshi.T.A. No.527/Kol/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Bihari Lal Malpani Ito, Ward-43(1), Kolkata. -Vs- [Pan :Adupm 6438 R]

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…connection is placed on the celebrated decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had relied on its earlier judgement rendered in the case ofOmar Salay Mohamed Sait [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) and had held that: "It is, therefore, clear that the Tribunal in arriving at the conclusion it did in the present case indulged in suspicions, conjectures and surmises and acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly…

Smt. Sushila Devi Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 36, Kolkata

ITA 1255/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his u…

Navin Kumar Kajaria, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 35, Kolkata

ITA 1254/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)Section 68

…ion howsoever strong, cannot partake the character of legal evidence. Reference was made to the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC, , Umacharan Shaw 37 ITR 271 and Omar Salay Mohamed Sait 37 ITR 151. The ld AR submitted that the entire case of the revenue is based upon the presumption that the assessee has ploughed back his own unaccounted money in the form of bogus LTCG. However, this presumption or suspicion howsoever strong it may be, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that the assessee had brought back his u…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4966/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…he basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its fi…

B.R. Associates Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4965/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 10Section 132Section 153ASection 2(22)Section 234ASection 68

…he basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. Reliance for this proposition is placed on 37 ITR 271 (SC) Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. Co. v. CIT. It has been further held in the following cases that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof: i) 37 ITR 151(SC) Omar Salay Mohammad Sait v CIT The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its fi…