Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

57 ITR 532Supreme Court of India1965#710 most cited

What is Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT authority for?

Not all receipts constitute income chargeable to tax. An Assessing Officer cannot reject a prima facie reasonable explanation on mere probabilities or arbitrary grounds, but must disprove facts.

142

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2007 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT · 57 ITR 532 · not all receipts income · income chargeable to tax · AO cannot reject explanation arbitrarily · probabilities and possibilities · disbelieved not disproved · burden of proof on AO · Section 5 · Section 68 · Section 143(3)

Sections most often in play

Section 5(2)Section 9Section 147Section 6Section 143(3)Section 5Section 68Section 149(1)(c)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

undisclosed foreign income and assetssection 149(1)(c)section 5(2)business connectionsection 149(1)creditworthiness of the creditorliable to taxtangible materialsection 34borrowed satisfactionsatisfaction noteassessee in default

Judgments citing Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT

The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. M/S. Aarti Catalyst Solution Pvt. Ltd, Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1195/AHD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Feb 2022AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.R. Makwana, Sr.DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 68

…to prove that it is within the taxing provision and if a receipt is in the nature of income, the burden of proving that it is not taxable because it falls within an exemption provided by the Act lies upon the assessee (Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) at page 536). But, in view of section 68 of the Act, where any sum is found credited in the books of the assessee for any previous year, the same may be charged to Income-tax as the income of the assessee of that previous year if the explanation offered by the assessee about the nature and source thereof is, in the opinion of the Assessing Of…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6723/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…ts by the Revenue to shift the onus upon the Assessee, including through calling upon an assessee to offer negative proof, has been denounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Tribunal. Reliance is placed on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) - Pg. No. 4 & 5; Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, through L.R / Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney v. DCIT Mumbai ITAT order dated 01.06.2021 - Para 6.1.12; Kamal Galani v. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai (Mumbai ITAT order dated 10.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 138 to 142/Mum/2019) - Para 12 & 14; DCIT (IT), Mumbai v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mu…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6722/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…ts by the Revenue to shift the onus upon the Assessee, including through calling upon an assessee to offer negative proof, has been denounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Tribunal. Reliance is placed on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) - Pg. No. 4 & 5; Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, through L.R / Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney v. DCIT Mumbai ITAT order dated 01.06.2021 - Para 6.1.12; Kamal Galani v. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai (Mumbai ITAT order dated 10.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 138 to 142/Mum/2019) - Para 12 & 14; DCIT (IT), Mumbai v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mu…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6721/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…ts by the Revenue to shift the onus upon the Assessee, including through calling upon an assessee to offer negative proof, has been denounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Tribunal. Reliance is placed on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) - Pg. No. 4 & 5; Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, through L.R / Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney v. DCIT Mumbai ITAT order dated 01.06.2021 - Para 6.1.12; Kamal Galani v. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai (Mumbai ITAT order dated 10.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 138 to 142/Mum/2019) - Para 12 & 14; DCIT (IT), Mumbai v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mu…

Vilas Waman Katre, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Range 7(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6720/MUM/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Freshthe SethnaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 148

…ts by the Revenue to shift the onus upon the Assessee, including through calling upon an assessee to offer negative proof, has been denounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Tribunal. Reliance is placed on Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) - Pg. No. 4 & 5; Late Shri Bhushan Lal Sawhney, through L.R / Wife Smt. Sneh Lata Sawhney v. DCIT Mumbai ITAT order dated 01.06.2021 - Para 6.1.12; Kamal Galani v. ACIT-23(3), Mumbai (Mumbai ITAT order dated 10.09.2020 in ITA Nos. 138 to 142/Mum/2019) - Para 12 & 14; DCIT (IT), Mumbai v. Hemant Mansukhlal Pandya [2018] 100 taxmann.com 280 (Mu…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S. Abb Ltd

In the result, appeal stands dismissed

ITA/568/2015HC Karnataka04 Oct 2021

Bench: S.SUJATHA,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 143Section 2(24)Section 220Section 220(2)Section 254Section 260Section 260ASection 45

…n on remand. Any further remand on this point would be a futile exercise. Learned counsel placed - 21 - reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma V/s. Commissioner of Income-tax [(1965) 57 ITR 532 (SC)]. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Parimisetti Seetharamamma supra, has observed thus: “In so observing the High Court, in our judgment, has committed an error of law. By ss. 3 & 4 the Act imposes a general ability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income li…

Addl. CIT, Special Range-8, New Delhi vs. St Microelectronics Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue and the cross-objection of

ITA 4774/DEL/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K.Panda & Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2005-06 Addl. Cit, Vs St Micro Electronics Pvt.Ltd., Special Range-8, 202-206,Tolstoy House, 15, New Delhi. Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacs3406M Appellant Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 92C

…ncome tax and the question whether the particular receipt is income or not will depend upon the nature of the receipt as well as the scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma vs. CIT (57 ITR 532) has observed as under: “By sections 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1437/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2013-14
Section 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1434/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1436/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1437/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ACIT, CC-8(4) Shri Mohan Thakur 4, Flora Villa, 35, St. 6th Floor Andrews Road, Bandra(W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 050. M.K. Road Churchgate PAN : AAAPT2966N Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Department by Shri Bharat Anohle Date of Hearing 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncemen…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1436/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2012-13
Section 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1434/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1436/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1437/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ACIT, CC-8(4) Shri Mohan Thakur 4, Flora Villa, 35, St. 6th Floor Andrews Road, Bandra(W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 050. M.K. Road Churchgate PAN : AAAPT2966N Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Department by Shri Bharat Anohle Date of Hearing 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncemen…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1435/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2011-12
Section 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1434/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1436/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1437/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ACIT, CC-8(4) Shri Mohan Thakur 4, Flora Villa, 35, St. 6th Floor Andrews Road, Bandra(W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 050. M.K. Road Churchgate PAN : AAAPT2966N Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Department by Shri Bharat Anohle Date of Hearing 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncemen…

Shri Mohan Thakur, Mumbai vs. A.C.I.T. Cent. Cir. 8(4), Mumbai

ITA 1434/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2021AY 2009-10
Section 69

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” Bench, Mumbai Shri Shamim Yahya (AM) & Shri Amarjit Singh (JM) I.T.A. No. 1434/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2009-10) I.T.A. No. 1435/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2011-12) I.T.A. No. 1436/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2012-13) I.T.A. No. 1437/Mum/2018 (Assessment Year 2013-14) Vs. ACIT, CC-8(4) Shri Mohan Thakur 4, Flora Villa, 35, St. 6th Floor Andrews Road, Bandra(W) Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai-400 050. M.K. Road Churchgate PAN : AAAPT2966N Mumbai-400 020. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. K. Shivram Department by Shri Bharat Anohle Date of Hearing 01.03.2021 Date of Pronouncemen…

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Visakhapatnam vs. Vijayalakshmi Steel Enterprises, Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the revenue as well as the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 401/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Feb 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.401/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) Income Tax Officer Vs. M/S Vijayalakshmi Steel Ward-5(4) Enterprises Visakhapatnam F.No.8-13-7, Nh 5 Road Old Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaxfs8016P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) Cross Objection No.01/Viz/2020 (Arising Out Of I.T.A.No.401/Viz/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2014-15) M/S Vijayalakshmi Steel Enterprises Vs. Income Tax Officer F.No.8-13-7, Nh 5 Road Ward-5(4) Old Gajuwaka Visakhapatnam Visakhapatnam [Pan :Aaxfs8016P] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju,Dr निर्धाऩरती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri C.Subrahmanyam, Ar सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2021 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2021

For Appellant: Shri C.Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.Satyanarayana Raju,DR
Section 69B

…5. That the burden is on the revenue to prove that the income sought to be taxed is within the taxing provisions and there was in fact income, are propositions which are well-settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 which reiterates these propositions.” 7.1. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has also considered the issue on stock statement given to the bank on inflated balance for bank loan purposes and decided the issue favour of the assessee in Commissioner of Income- 10 I.T.A. No.401/Viz/2019 and CO No.01/Viz/2020, A.Y.2014-15 M/s Vijayalakshmi Steel Enterprises…

Batliboi Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in part

ITA 5428/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm M/S. Batliboi Limited Vs. Dy. Cit, Circle 2(1) Bharat House, Aayakar Bhavan 5Th Floor, 104 5Th Floor, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai Samachar Marg Fort, Mumbai -400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacb4408L (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 40A

…tax and the question whether the particular receipt is income or not will depend upon the nature of the receipt as well as the scope and effect of the relevant taxing provision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC) has observed as under: "By sections 3 and 4, the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, imposes a general liability to tax upon all income. But the Act does not provide that whatever is received by a person must be regarded as income liable to tax. In all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to p…

Dabur Invest Corp, New Delhi vs. JCIT, Range-46, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8058/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Partially Through Video Conferencing) Dabur Invest Corp, The Joint Commissioner Of Vs. 4Th Floor, Punjabi Bhawan, 10, Income Tax , Rouse Avenue, New Delhi Range-46, Pan: Aaadfd2529G New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri M. P. Rastogi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri G. C. Srivastava, Adv
Section 143Section 4

…mount is not the criteria to determine its nature. All incomes are receipt, but all receipts are not income. It is only those very receipts, which have the characteristic of income, are taxable under the Income-tax Act (See ParimesettiSeetharamamma vs. CIT in 57 ITR 532 (SC). 6. There is a fundamental difference between capital receipts and income receipts. The income receipts are liable to tax u/s 4 of the Act, but capital receipts are not liable to tax except the capital gain. He relied up on 57 ITR 36 (SC) CIT vs. Maheshwari Devi Jute Mills Ltd., 249 ITR 265 (Bom) Caddle Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, 273 I…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 606/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…vent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it bec…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 605/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…vent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it bec…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op.Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 604/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…vent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it bec…

Shree Veershaiv Co.Op .Bank Ltd, Kolhapur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Kolhapur

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 2611/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

For Appellant: Shri M. K. KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 40

…vent the assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. It has been held by the Supreme court that the primary liability and onus is on the Department to prove that a certain receipt is liable to be taxed vide Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SC). Sri Chopra then relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. [1996] 220 ITR 305. In our opinion that decision is also distinguishable because in that case the deposit was forfeited and the result of the transaction was that the bank became full owner of the security and the amount lying in deposit with it bec…

DCIT, Sirhind vs. M/S Raja Fat & Feeds Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 840/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 840/Chd/2017 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Aggarwal &For Respondent: Shri P.K.Sharma, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 44A

…he Hon'ble High Court has held as under:- "The judgment relied upon is distinguishable on the facts. There is no doubt about the proposition that the burden of proving taxability of income is on the Revenue, as held in Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT [1965] 57 ITR 532 (SCj, referred to in the above judgment. For discharging the said burden, it is not necessary that some positive evidence must be led by the Revenue. In a given case, even by drawing inference from the material available, if explanation of the assessee is found to be unreliable, the claim of the assesee can be rejected. In such situation, the burd…

ACIT Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore vs. Elgi Electric & Industries Ltd., Coimbatore

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

ITA 2116/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jan 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2116/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Elgi Electric & Industries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle, Vs. 737-D, Elgi Towers, Puliakulam, 63-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Green Fields, Coimbatore 641 045. [Pan:Aabhs0590L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, Ca सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02.01.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore, Dated 04.04.2018 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. The Revenue Has Challenged The Order Of Deleting The Addition Made On Account Of Variation In The Value Of Closing Stock Declared In The Balance Sheet Vis-À-Vis That Declared Before The Bankers, Without Appreciating The Fact That Both The Figures Are Certified By The Assessee Itself.

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. JCITFor Respondent: Ms. T. Sandhyaarti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 69

…Swamy (supra), in which the case law relied on before the Tribunal was also relied on before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court and find that while applying the case law as relied on by the ld. DR as well as in the case of Parimisetti Seetharamamma v. CIT 57 ITR 532 (SC), in the case of CIT v. N. Swamy, the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court has observed and held as under: “4. We find it a little difficult to agree with those observations. The asses- see's income is to be assessed by the Income-tax Officer on the basis of the material which is required to be considered for the purpose of assessment and ordina…