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 366,005 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

K M R Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 864/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. 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. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Marri Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 863/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. 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. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 861/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. 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. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Chandramma Educational Society, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 860/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 12A

…Rawatmull (1973) 87 ITR 349 (SC), where it was held that the onus to prove that apparent is not real is on the person who claims it to be so. 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. Therefore, in our considered view, going by the facts available on record, the reasons given by the Ld. PCIT (Central) for cancellation of the registration of the Society under Section 12AB(4)(ii) of the Act, are not based on appraisal of relevant facts a…

Kamal Khetan, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2702/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

…SEBI, which regulates the trading in stock exchange. 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 cast upon revenue to corroborate the impugned additions by controverting the documentary evidences furnished by the assessee and by bringing on record…

Sdc Construction, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 1(3), Jiapur

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

ITA 347/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Mathur, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT, Sr. DR a
Section 144BSection 147Section 249(4)(a)Section 68

…rted by documents appearing to be genuine. c) The statements recorded do not have a clear and a distinct remark about the assessee so as to challenge the genuineness of the transaction. Hon'ble Supreme Courtin 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, totally disregarding the documentary evidence. 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. We submit that in the identical…

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

…T BHADRA vs ITO 25(3)(1) ITA No. 1665/MUM/2024 FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENT WHERE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED:- A. 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. B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. C. Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/…

Rajendra Kumar Mundra (HUF), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1000/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawalrajendra Kumar Mundra Vs. Ito, Ward 24(3)(1) (Huf) Piramal Chamber C-28, Ameya Bldg, Behind Lalbaug, Mumbai – Ymca Dn Nagar Andheri (W) 400012. 400053. Pan/Gir No.Aadh6828J (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 263Section 68Section 69A

…No 05,06,07 and 10/SRT/2019 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENT WHERE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF THIRD PARTY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN DELETED:- A. 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. B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence. C. Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A. No. 22/…

Income Tax Officer, Sikar vs. Bhaskar Chauhan, Jaipur

In the result the appeal of the revenue in ITA no

ITA 868/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri S.L.Poddar, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs Alka Gautam, CIT-DR a
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153CSection 251Section 69Section 69ASection 69C

…OTR 736 (iv) State Vs. GuljariLalTondon AIR 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) J.A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharsinghji P. Jadera (2005) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shaa 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand BhagatAmbika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 In view of above facts and circumstances the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer deserves to be deleted." In view of the aforesaid submissions, the Learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition. The Learned CIT(A) has observed that the deposits in the bank account amounting to Rs. 1,57,…

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 349/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 69Section 69A

…o the extent of appreciating the fact that additions made on the basis of third party statement have also been deleted and in this regard, we rely upon the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (S C), wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A…

Homelife Buildcon Private Limited, Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab vs. Smt. Samandeep Kaur DCIT-Central Circle-1, Ludhiana, Punjab

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 880/CHANDI/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 बनाम Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 880/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited बनाम The DCIT Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 Ludhiana, Punjab "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1036/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The DCI…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. Homelife Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, Revenue appeal is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1036/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh17 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV (Vice President), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 880/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलार्थी/Appellant The DCIT Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1036/Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Lu

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rohit Kapoor, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 115BSection 153D

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी राजपाल यादव, उपा"" एवं "ी कृणव" सहाय, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. RAJPAL YADAV, VP & SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 880/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Homelife Buildcon Private Limited बनाम The DCIT Sunview Enclave, Ayali Kalan, Central Circle-1 Ludhiana, Punjab-142027 Ludhiana, Punjab "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCH5690M अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1036/Chd/ 2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 The DCI…

Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-18, New Delhi

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

ITA 1643/DEL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2010-11] Shri Sanjay Taneja, Vs Acit, 198/1, Ramesh Market, Central Circle-18, East Of Kailash, Delhi New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaept8805A Appellant Respondent Appellant By S/Shri Mohit Chaudhary, Ca, Harish, Ca, Neetu Jain, Ca & Mitika Chaudhary, Adv. Respondent By Shri Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 03.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04.07.2025 Order

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 69A

…of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of DT Vs. R.Y. Durlabhji reported in 211-1TR- 178 wherein at page 189, the Hon’ble 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.” 21. In the case of D.A. Patel vs. DCIT (Mum) reported…

Geeta Devi Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO WD 1(4), Jpr, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 450/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Badri Lal Agarwal through Legal heir Smt. Geeta Devi G-5, Shyama Residency, Plot No. 7, Purander Ji Ka Bag Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: ALGPA5194C अपीलार्थी / Appellant निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. S. B. Natani, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख /

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…Lal 26 OTR 736 d Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 h Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 SC 40 I Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts and has filed his return of income in form 4S under section 44 ADA under presum…

Surendra Pal Singh Sahni, Kota vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Kota

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 450/JPR/2024[2005-06]Status: FixedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. B. Natani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

…Lal 26 OTR 736 d Lal chand Bhagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 e State Vs Guljari lal Tondan AIR 1979 (SC) f J A Naidoo Vs State of Maharastra AIR 1979 SC 1537 g Krishnand Vs State of MP AIR 1977 SC 796 h Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 SC 40 I Omar Saha 37 ITR 151 (SC) Further It is submitted that the learned AO has made the addition under section 69A of the income tax Act 961 which is wrong as the provisions of section 69 A is not applicable upon the assessee. As noted supra the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts and has filed his return of income in form 4S under section 44 ADA under presum…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle), Jammu vs. Anita Kapahi, Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

ITA 557/ASR/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar29 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv
Section 131Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69

…de by the AO simply on the basis of presumption and has deleted the addition by observing as follows: (relevant portion reproduced) : “The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait vs. Commissioner of Income-tax reported at [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) [05-03-1959] held as under: "Whether Tribunal should not base its findings on suspicions, conjectures, or surmises nor should it act on evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of that sort, its findings, even tho…

Alka Rajesh Vanigota, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (A)-52, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 229/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 271ASection 69Section 69A

…o the extent of appreciating the fact that additions made on the basis of third party statement have also been deleted and in this regard, we rely upon the decision in the case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC), wherein it was held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shah & Bros. Vs. CIT 37 ITR 271 held that suspicion however strong, cannot take the place of evidence and Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhagwati Prasad Agarwal in I.T.A.…

DCIT 13(3)(2) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Raj Arcades Homes Private Limited (Aafcr6616R), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3575/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra, CA
Section 143(3)Section 195J

…on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition ignoring the fact that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal In the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1959) (37 ITR 151) (SC). 3. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the grounds be set aside and confirm the order of the AO.” 3. Assessee is a builder and developer. Assessee is developing a SRA project namely Kalpavruksh Heights situated at CTS No. 471A pt. of Village Kandivali West, Laljipada, New Link road, Mumbai - 400067. The project consists of 3…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. Shri.Jagannathan Sekar, Chennai

ITA 1279/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Opp.Smbm School, Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 3/29, New No,3/40, Muthupattinam, S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), Chennai. # 25, Sambasivam Street, T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By : Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By : Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

For Respondent: Mr. V.Justin, CIT

…OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump docume…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Chennai vs. S. Ramachandran, Pudukkottai

ITA 1278/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1274, 1275 & 1283/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri K.Rethinam, Central Circle-2(4), # 1/1, Gtn Salai, Chennai. Opp.Smbm School, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Dindigul -624 001. Pan :Arwpr-3777-N (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1276, 1277 & 1278/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri S.Ramachandran, Central Circle-2(4), # 3/29, New No,3/40, Chennai. Muthupattinam, (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) S.Kulavaipettai Post, Alangudi Tk-622 001. Pan :Adfpr-3158-Q (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) & आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1279, 1280 & 1281/Chny/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Shri Jagannathan Sekar Central Circle-2(4), # 25, Sambasivam Street, Chennai. T.Nagar Chennai-600 017. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Pan :Bcdps-4688-G (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थीकीओरसे / Revenue By Mr. V.Justin, Cit प्रत्यर्थीकीओरसे / Assessee(S) By Mr. Y.Sridhar, F.C.A. & Ms. Varsha Sridhar, C.A सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 25.02.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2025 Per Bench: आदेश / Order 2

…OTR 736 (iv) Stote Vs. Gujari Lal Tondon All. 1979 (SC) 1382 (v) A. Naidu vs. State of Maharastra SC 1537 (vi) Krishnand vs. State of Mandharzinghji P. Jadera (2905) 281 ITR 0019 AIR 1977 SC 796 (vii) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (viii) Omar Shac 37 ITR 151 (SC) (ix) Lal Chand Ehagat Ambika Ram (1959) 37 ITR 288 (x) It has been held by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur Bench Jaipur in the case of Moonchand Kumawat & Sons vs. DCIT Ajmer vide order dated 20.02.2009 42 Taxworld 241 that if a document does not contain any date and rame and only contains numerical figures then ruch document is vague and dump docume…