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 366,314 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

Ganraj Homes LLP, Pune vs. Income Tax, Central Circle 2(3), Pune

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 874/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Feb 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: S/Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR &
Section 132Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 153A

…ncome-tax Officer could come to the conclusion that the firm was not genuine. There are many surmises and conjectures, and the conclusion is the result of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof in these matters.  Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) "...On no account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises nor should it act on no 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 the sort, its findings, even though on que…

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

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

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the burden shifts upon the AO to disprove the same and without disproving the same the AO cannot treat the transactions as in genuine merely on the basis of ‘suspicion and surmises' as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 1. Omkar Sahay Mohemmad Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC) 2. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 3. Umacharan Shaw & Bros.37 ITR 271 at page 272 (SC) 18. Hence, in our considered view the additions under such a circumstances are not sustainable. Further the Ld AO relied on the third party statements and stated that it is a mere accommodation entry and treated the genuine purchases as ingen…

Income Tax Officer 41(3)(1), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhavan vs. Bhagwati Prasad N Rungta, India

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue Department is dismissed

ITA 1574/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jan 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Mrs. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, Ld. A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Laxmi Kant, Ld. Sr. D.R
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250

…ney of the appellant which he received through inappropriate means. Therefore, this loan transaction which was undertaken and repaid • Omar Salay Mohamed Salt vs Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Madras on 5 March, 1959 Equivalent citations: AIR 1959SC1238, (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC), AIR 1959 SUPREME COURT 1238. (Copy attached in Paper Book Pg. No. 235 to 253). In the light of the above submission and case law cited supra, we request your Honour to kindly delete the addition”. 4. The Ld. Commissioner, by considering the written submissions of the Assessee and the assessment order, ultimately deleted the addition 9 Mr.…

Netenrich Technologies Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle - 5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 870/HYD/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad02 Jan 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: SHRI MANJUNATHA G. (Accountant Member), SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY (Judicial 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…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO - 19(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 262/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…vidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of an evidence; 10.11 The assessee in his support that the transa…

Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(1)(5), Mumbai

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 261/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…vidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of an evidence; 10.11 The assessee in his support that the transa…

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Hitesh Mangilal Jain, Mumbai

ITA 257/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Ms. Ridisha Jain / Shri Karan JainFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 68Section 69C

…vidence on record to justify the allegations, thus the addition made on the basis of assumption and surmise is unjustified. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (37 ITR 288) and in the case of Omar Sahay Mohamad Sait v. CIT (37 ITR 151) had decided that it is a trite law that additions cannot be made on the basis of suspicion, surmise, conjectures and in absence of evidence. Also, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros. (37 ITR 271) had decided that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of an evidence; 10.11 The assessee in his support that the transa…

Aakash Dilip Doshi, Mumbai vs. ITO-19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4703/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanassessment Year : 2014-15 Aakash Dilip Doshi, Income Tax Officer–19(1)(1), 408/409, 4Th Floor, 2Nd Floor, Jivan Vihar, Vs. Matru Mandir, Manav Mandir Road, Tardeo, Malbar Hill, Mumbai Walkeshwar, Mumbai Pan : Ailpd8283D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dharmesh Shah Revenue By : Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 12/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2024

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Shinde, Sr.DR
Section 10(38)Section 131Section 68Section 69C

…purchase and sale of shares undertaken by the assessee. 13. Before us, the Ld.AR placed his reliance on various decisions rendered by the Co-ordinate Benches. We also notice that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait (1989)(37 ITR 151)(SC) that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. We may also refer to the some of the decisions rendered by the Hon‟ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court. In the case of Shyam Pawar (54 taxmann.com 108)(Bom), the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has observed as under:- “3. Mr.Sureshkumar seriously complained that such…

Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jinendra Mahendrakumar Shah, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4523/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jigar Mehta, DR
Section 115BSection 69

…the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC), Umacharan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) to establish that estimation and guesswork, howsoever strong, without evidences, cannot be used against the assessee. All these judicial pronouncements, supports the case of the appellant. In absence of the AO having established, the existence of any business operation by the appellant for the year under consideration; the estimation of busin…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Devine Infracon Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 3068/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: M Balaganesh, Accontant Member & Ms Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2010-11 The Assistant Vs. M/S Divine Infracon Commissioner Of Income Private Limited, Plot Tax, Central Circle-09, No. 4, Sector-13, Jhandewalan, New Delhi, Dwarka City Centre, Room No.357, Ara Centre, Dwarka, New Delhi- E-2, Jhandewalan 110075 Extension, New Delhi Pan :Aaccd4476A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr, Advocate Department By Shri T James Singson, Cit, Dr

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 68

…. The rule of law on this subject has, in our opinion, been fairly and rightly stated by the Lahore High Court in the case of Seth Gurmukh Singh vs. CIT, Punjab.' (It is by Bench of 5 Judges and is being repeated in all the subsequent binding precedents). ii) 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 f…

M/S Giriraj Enterprises, Pune vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 427/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 10(35)Section 132Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 153A

…by the fund. These mutual funds are controlled by the SEBI. The transaction carried by the assessee is genuine and transparent. Hence no disallowance of any clam can be made. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salav Mohamed Sait reported in (1950) [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 t…

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-23(1)(6), Mumbai

ITA 2093/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

Section 10(1)Section 68

…rein it has been held that there was no necessity whatsoever for assessee to maintain addresses of cash customers 12. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decision of Hon. Kolkata High Court in the case of CIT v. Lakshmangarh Estate & Trading Co Ltd. (220 Taxman 122) that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. 13. The Learned CIT(A) fu…

Florence Agro Farms, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 23(1)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee

ITA 2092/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Appellant: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DRFor Respondent: Mr. J B Bairagra/Ms. Rupa Nanda
Section 10(1)Section 68

…d CIT(A) further erred in not considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Salt v. CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) CIT/1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Uma Charan Shaw & Bros. v. CIT (1959) [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica TR 271 (SC), Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decision of Hon. 37 ITR 288 (SC) and decisi…

Tara Soni, Dausa vs. ITO Ward, Dausa

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed with no orders as to cost

ITA 13/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur17 Sept 2024AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

…eived LTCG, which is exempt from income tax, by way of cheque through banking channels. This allegation that cash had changed hands has to be proved with evidence, by the revenue - 33. 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, totally disregarding the documentary evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 held that apparent must be considered real unless proved contrary.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umacharan Shaw & Bros.…

Nathu Lal Jain HUF, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed with no orders as to costs

ITA 859/JPR/2024[2011-2012]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’ble SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tanuj Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 10(38)Section 139Section 148Section 68

…being placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC). 5 SHRI NATHU LAL JAIN HUF VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Omar Salay Mohamed Sait v CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC) had held that no addition can be made on the basis of surmises, suspicion and conjectures. In the case of CIT v. Daulat Ram Rawatmull [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) (SC) the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the onus to prove that the apparent is not real is on the party who claims it to be so. The burden of proving a transaction to be bogus has to be…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2938/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ed 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 Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appe…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2937/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ed 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 Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appe…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2936/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ed 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 Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appe…

Anil Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-17, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2935/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Amisha Gupt, CIT DR
Section 127Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 153CSection 153DSection 69C

…ed 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 Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 736; Omar Salay Md. Sait v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 151 (SC), Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd.v. CIT [1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC); Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 288 (SC). In the present case, AO had not made any enquiry except quoting Question No. 10 and reply thereto. The AO, further, failed, to bring any material on record, even prima-facie to suggest earning of income from job work, by the appe…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Ludhiana vs. Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed whereas, the 29

ITA 499/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Ito, Vs. Shree Balaji Processors, बनाम Ward-1(3), Tajpur Road, Ludhiana Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent & C.O. No. 09/Chd/2024 ( In आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 499/Chd/2023) "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Balaji Processors, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Tajpur Road, Ward-1(3), Opp. Central Jail, Ludhiana Ludhiana 141010 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Actfs8428B अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Bansal, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.06.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.08.2024

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…ng Officer on doubt, conjectures and surmises which is not valid as per the law settled in the 499-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 46 case of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sh. Omar Salay Mohammed Sait Vs CIT as reported in 37 ITR 151 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “if the Tribunal bases its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises or it acts on improper rejection of material and relevant evidence, or partly on evidence or partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fac…