P.R. Metrani v. CIT

287 ITR 209Supreme Court of India2006#506 most cited

What is P.R. Metrani v. CIT authority for?

Section 132 of the Income Tax Act is a self-contained code governing search and seizure operations. The books of accounts, documents, valuables, or statements recorded during a search can be used as evidence in any subsequent proceedings under the Act, and the section outlines the conditions for issuing warrants of authorization.

187

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,416 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

P.R. Metrani v. CIT · Section 132 scope · search and seizure · warrants of authorization · evidence from search · statements recorded during search · incriminating material · block assessment · Section 153A · Section 153C · Section 132(4) · Section 132(4A)

Also reported as

157 Taxmann 3251 SCC 789

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 132(4)Section 131Section 292CSection 115BBE
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 132(5)section 243section 158bdincome tax settlement commissionsection 65b(4)casus omissussection 144atrue and full disclosuresection 292csection 269sscarry forward of lossessection 132(4a)

Judgments citing P.R. Metrani v. CIT

DCIT Central Circle-3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1354/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

DCIT - CC 3(1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1353/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

DCIT Central Circle 3 (1), Mumbai vs. Wind World India Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 1352/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jun 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Dr. Pallavi Darade, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 153ASection 243CSection 245DSection 92C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM ITA Nos. 1352 to 1355 & 1910/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 & 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower, Central Circle-3(1) Room No. 1924, Veera Desai Road, Air India Building, Veera Industrial Estate, Vs. 19th Floor, Nariman, Andheri (W) Mumbai-400 021 Mumbai-400 053 (Respondent) (Appellant) PAN No. AAACE 0319 D ITA Nos. 1465, 1466 to 1470/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2014-15) M/s Wind World India Ltd. The DCIT A-9, Wind World Tower,…

Shri Ashok Dharendra, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 256/JPR/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 256/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Ashok Dharendra, Cuke D.C.I.T. 23, Shivraj Niketan Scheme, Vs. Central Circle-3, Gautam Marg, Nr Vaishali Jaipur. Nagar Circle, Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aavpd 6554 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Manish Agarwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Shri S. Najmi (Cit-Dr) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 02/02/2022 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 12 /04/2022 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- 4, Jaipur Dated 01/12/2017 For The A.Y. 2015-16 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Read With Section 153B(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- Made In The Assessment Completed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153B(1)(B) Solely On The Basis Of Statements Recorded During The Course Of Search Which Stood Retracted By The Assessee Through An Affidavit Filed. Thus, The Addition Made Solely On The Basis Of Such Retracted Statements Deserves To Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri S. Najmi (CIT-DR)
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153B(1)(b)Section 3

…However, on the contrary, we found that the presumption available U/s 132(4A) of the Act is limited to search period and is not available in the assessment proceedings. In the case of P.R. METRANI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) (2006) 287 ITR 209, it was held that any presumption available under the Act is always rebuttable. In the case of the assessee pages 67 ITA 256/JP/2018_ Sh. Ashok Dharendra Vs DCIT 1 to 4 of Annexure- A2, found during search have been established by the assessee as defective and even the A.O. could not establish that the contents of these papers related to the bus…

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. Vyapar Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7159/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Mr. Satyapraksh Singh, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 106Section 132Section 143(3)Section 150Section 153ASection 153CSection 292C

…d (2019] 103 taxmann.com 9 (SC) 5. Bansal Strips (P) Ltd 99 ITD 177 Delhi 6. Harish Daulatram Innani v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax(Inv), Cir. 11(1), Mumbai (2008] 24 SOT 541 (Mumbai) 7. K P Verghese v ITO 24 CTR 358 (SC) 8. P. R. Metrani vs. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 SC 9. CIT vs. Smt. P. K. Nooriahan 1999 237 ITR 570 (SC) 10. CBI Vs. V. C. Shukla & Ors. (1998) 3SCE 410 The gist submitted by the assessee of some of the cases is an under:- 1. Bhajan Das & Bros v. ACIT (2009] 119 ITD 76 ITAT (THIRD MEMBER) (Agra) In a search conducted under section 132 at residences of partners of assessee-firm on 22-2-2003,…

Mre. Kranti Bagad, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT, CC-1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 458/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalemrs. Kranti Bagad, Vs. Dcit, Cc-1(1) 1302, Sidhivinayak 9Th Floor, Pratistha Chs Ltd, Plot No. 3, Bhavan, Old Cgo Bldg Sector – 14, Khanda Annexe, Mk Road, Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai – 400020. Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Ahppb2241N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. Ar Respondent By : Mr.K.K.Mishra. Cit.Dr Date Of Hearing 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm:

For Appellant: Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. ARFor Respondent: Mr.K.K.Mishra. CIT.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mrs. Kranti Bagad, Vs. DCIT, CC-1(1) 1302, Sidhivinayak 9th Floor, Pratistha CHS Ltd, Plot No. 3, Bhavan, Old CGO Bldg Sector – 14, Khanda Annexe, MK Road, Colony, New Panvel, Mumbai – 400020. Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AHPPB2241N Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Ms.Hiral.D.Sejpal. C.A. AR Respondent by : Mr.K.K.Mishra. CIT.DR Date of Hearing 09.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 14.02.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER PAVAN KUMA…

Dy CIT Central Circle-4(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Vinodkumar Bajaj & Company HUF, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 1873/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Ms. Hema SharmaFor Respondent: Shri S.N. Kabra
Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

…009-10: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.3,05,05,000/- u/s 68 of the I.T Act, 1961 without appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P R Metrani v. CIT (287 ITR 209) and considering the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act of the promoter of lender entity. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition u/s 68 of the IT Act without considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Durga Prasasd 82 ITR 540 even when the coll…

Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Bathinda vs. DCIT, Ludhiana

ITA 461/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…on 132(4A) is rebuttable presumption and the same can only be raised by the department when a document is a speaking one and it reflects complete transaction without two interpretations. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • P.R. Metrani Vs. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) • ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2008) 5 DTR (Jab) 202 para 31 • Gurlal Singh Grewal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1208/Chd/2011 vide order dt. 29/08/2012 (Chd) • CIT Vs. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) • Satnam Singh Chhabra Vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ(Lucknow) 976 • CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) • Kantilal Chandulal & Co. Vs. CIT (1982…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 455/CHANDI/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…on 132(4A) is rebuttable presumption and the same can only be raised by the department when a document is a speaking one and it reflects complete transaction without two interpretations. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • P.R. Metrani Vs. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) • ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2008) 5 DTR (Jab) 202 para 31 • Gurlal Singh Grewal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1208/Chd/2011 vide order dt. 29/08/2012 (Chd) • CIT Vs. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) • Satnam Singh Chhabra Vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ(Lucknow) 976 • CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) • Kantilal Chandulal & Co. Vs. CIT (1982…

DCIT, Ludhiana vs. Sh. Inderjit Singh Brar, Mohali

ITA 454/CHANDI/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. C. Chandrakanta, CIT,DR

…on 132(4A) is rebuttable presumption and the same can only be raised by the department when a document is a speaking one and it reflects complete transaction without two interpretations. Reliance was placed on the following case laws: • P.R. Metrani Vs. CIT 287 ITR 209 (SC) • ACIT Vs. Satyapal Wassan (2008) 5 DTR (Jab) 202 para 31 • Gurlal Singh Grewal Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 1208/Chd/2011 vide order dt. 29/08/2012 (Chd) • CIT Vs. Atam Valves (P) Ltd. (2009) 184 Taxman 6 (P&H) • Satnam Singh Chhabra Vs. Dy. CIT (2002) 74 TTJ(Lucknow) 976 • CIT Vs. Ravi Kumar 294 ITR 78 (P&H) • Kantilal Chandulal & Co. Vs. CIT (1982…

Rajender Sharma, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3434/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R
Section 132(4)Section 153A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.3434/DEL/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-2012 Rajender Sharma, vs. DCIT, C/o Ravi Gupta, Advocate, Central Circle, E 6A, Kailash Colony Noida. New Delhi. TAN/PAN: AAIPS5983J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.C. Yadav, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT-D.R. Date of hearing: 19 08 2021 Date of pronouncement: 28 09 2021 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the impugned order dated 31.03.…

Amit H Patel (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT-CC 3((4), Mumbai

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessees are allowed

ITA 5762/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harith, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…the issue as to whether an incriminating statement can be considered to be an incriminating evidence for the purpose of search assessment, it will be relevant to consider the decision of the the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.R. Metrani v. CIT f20061 287 ITR 209/157 Taxman 325 (SO. It has been explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statements recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the Act. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5516/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…CSL to be guilty of rigging the share prices and restrained / prohibited them from accessing the market or trading for a further period of 3 years. 3.3 The admission made by the assessee in terms of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani V/s CIT 2006 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article thing or any statement recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as he…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5515/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…CSL to be guilty of rigging the share prices and restrained / prohibited them from accessing the market or trading for a further period of 3 years. 3.3 The admission made by the assessee in terms of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani V/s CIT 2006 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article thing or any statement recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as he…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5514/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…CSL to be guilty of rigging the share prices and restrained / prohibited them from accessing the market or trading for a further period of 3 years. 3.3 The admission made by the assessee in terms of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani V/s CIT 2006 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article thing or any statement recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as he…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5513/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…CSL to be guilty of rigging the share prices and restrained / prohibited them from accessing the market or trading for a further period of 3 years. 3.3 The admission made by the assessee in terms of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani V/s CIT 2006 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article thing or any statement recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as he…

Mr. Anil Agrawal (HUF), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

The appeals stand partly allowed

ITA 5512/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. Nos.5512-5516/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2010-11 To 2014-15) Mr. Anil Agrawal (Huf) Dcit-Central Circle-3(4) Room No.1915, 19Th Floor बिाम/ 2401-2402, Anmol Pride Off. Patel Auto, S.V. Road, Air India Building, Nariman Point Vs. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400 062. Mumbai-400 021. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacha-9591-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Khandelwal & Shri Aakash Kumar-Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 12/01/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 05/04/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench 1.1 Aforesaid Appeals By Assessee For Assessment Years (Ay) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Contest Separate Orders Of Learned First Appellate Authority. However, Facts & Issues Are More Or Less Similar. Therefore, The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Now Being Disposed-Off By Way Of This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience & Brevity. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication In Any Year Would Substantially Apply To All The Other Years Also.

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal &For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Harit-Ld. CIT-DR
Section 153ASection 153DSection 68

…CSL to be guilty of rigging the share prices and restrained / prohibited them from accessing the market or trading for a further period of 3 years. 3.3 The admission made by the assessee in terms of decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in P. R. Metrani V/s CIT 2006 287 ITR 209 wherein it was explained that books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewelery or other valuable article thing or any statement recorded of the persons searched may be used as evidence for any proceedings under the act, would constitute incriminating material. Further, the statement given on oath u/s 132(4) would have evidentiary value as he…

Picheswar Gadde, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 288/DEL/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 131Section 132Section 292Section 292C

…the assessee. The counsel further stated that the presumption u/s. 292 C of the Act is rebatable presumption and is not conclusive proof. For this proposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Materani 2006 157 Taxmann 325. 11. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the authorities below. 12. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The document on the basis of which the impugned additions have been made is exhibited elsewhere. A bare perusal of the said document show that first entry of Rs. 50 lacs pertains to Vijaywada…

Picheswar Gadde, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 10(1), New Delhi

ITA 6856/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kamble(Through Video Conferencing)

Section 131Section 132Section 292Section 292C

…the assessee. The counsel further stated that the presumption u/s. 292 C of the Act is rebatable presumption and is not conclusive proof. For this proposition reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. R. Materani 2006 157 Taxmann 325. 11. Per contra the DR strongly supported the findings of the authorities below. 12. We have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. The document on the basis of which the impugned additions have been made is exhibited elsewhere. A bare perusal of the said document show that first entry of Rs. 50 lacs pertains to Vijaywada…

Shri Jaisingh Yadav, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3 Jaipur

In the result, both these appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1291/JPR/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1290 & 1291/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 & 2015-16 Cuke Jaisingh Yadav, A.C.I.T., Vs. 1, Mehta Ki Dhani, Chandra Nagar- Central Circle-3, A, Govindpura, Kalwar Road, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Acwpy 5493 R Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 07/10/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 21/10/2020 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. Both These Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Two Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-4, Jaipur Dated 18/09/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. Grounds Taken By The Assessee In Both These Appeals Are Reproduced As Under: Grounds Of Ita No. 1290/Jp/2019 (A.Y. 2014-15) “1. The Learned Ao Has Seriously Erred In Law & Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 1274700 In The Income Of Assessee As Undisclosed Income. Hon'Ble Cit (Appeals) Has Seriously Erred In Rejecting The Appeal Of Assessee & Confirming The Additions Without Considering The Appeal Submission & On Wrong Premise. The Learned Cit (Appeals) Erred In Referring The Copy Of Itr Of Female Family Members Of Assessee As Certain Loose Documents Which Contained Incriminating Transaction & Also Erred In Stating That The Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Avinash Khandelwal (CA)For Respondent: Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
Section 292C

…AO that the documents did not belong to the assessee but the A.O. still proceeded to make the addition in income, which is in our view, was not sustainable. On this proposition, we rely on the following judicial pronouncements: a. P. R. Metrani v. CIT [2006] 287 ITR 209/157 Taxman 325 (SC) 29 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT In this judgment, dealing with the provision under Section 132(4A) of the Act, it was held by the Supreme Court:- “A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inferenc…