Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

91 ITR 18Supreme Court of India1973#84 most cited

What is Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala authority for?

Admissions, whether made through entries in account books or statements, are important pieces of evidence but are not conclusive. An assessee has the right to demonstrate that an admission made by them is incorrect or can be retracted.

666

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2009 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala · 91 ITR 18 · admission not conclusive · retraction of statement · statement under section 132(4) · evidentiary value of admissions · entries in account books as evidence · proving admission incorrect · Section 68 · Section 69A

Sections most often in play

Section 132(4)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 132Section 147Section 68Section 69ASection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

retraction of statementretracted statementstatement under section 132(4)section 158bbsection 132(4a)dumb documentssection 132(4)on-moneysection 69bloose paperspanchnamasection 158b

Judgments citing Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. v. State of Kerala

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar(HUF), Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 699/VIZ/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos. 698 & 699/VIZ/2019 (Asst. Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT, Central Circle-1, vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar Guntur. (HUF), D.No. 5-93-22, Water Tanks Road, 6/13, Brodipet, Guntur. PAN No.AAMHP 1463 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos. 08 &09/VIZ/2020 (Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 698 & 699/VIZ/2019) (Asst. Years :2015-16 & 2016-17) Paruchuru Satish Kumar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, (HUF), D…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Guntur vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar(HUF), Guntur

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue and the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 698/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Sonawal, CIT DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (Through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.Nos. 698 & 699/VIZ/2019 (Asst. Years : 2015-16 & 2016-17) DCIT, Central Circle-1, vs. Paruchuru Satish Kumar Guntur. (HUF), D.No. 5-93-22, Water Tanks Road, 6/13, Brodipet, Guntur. PAN No.AAMHP 1463 Q (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O.Nos. 08 &09/VIZ/2020 (Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 698 & 699/VIZ/2019) (Asst. Years :2015-16 & 2016-17) Paruchuru Satish Kumar vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, (HUF), D…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2993/CHNY/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2704/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2703/CHNY/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2195/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

Snj Distillers Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT Central Circle-2(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2194/CHNY/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

DCIT, CC-2(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue for Asst

ITA 2705/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Nov 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The Dcit, Vs M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195 & 2993/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18) Vs The Acit, M/S. Snj Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Old No.47, New No.99, Central Circle 2(1), Canal Bank Road, Chennai – 600 034. Cit Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. Pan: Aalcs9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate : राज"कीओरसे /Revenue By Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.Cit : सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13.10.2020 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2020

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, Advocate
Section 132Section 139Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 234A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी धु"ु" आर.एल रे"ी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी जी. मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2703, 2704, 2705/Chny/2019, ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2014-15,2015-16 & 2016-17) The DCIT, Vs M/s. SNJ Distillers Pvt. Ltd. Central Circle 2(1), Old No.47, New No.99, Chennai – 600 034. Canal Bank Road, CIT Nagar, Nandanam, Chenani – 600 035. PAN: AALCS9312F (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.2194, 2195…

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

…e the department does not have any material on record to prove that surrender by assessee was correct. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and T…

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

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

ITA 1290/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Oct 2020AY 2014-15

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

…e the department does not have any material on record to prove that surrender by assessee was correct. The assessee has placed reliance on the following judgements in support of his submission: (i) Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs State of Kerela [1973]19 ITR 18 (SC) (ii) CIT Vs. Bhanwar Lal Murwatiya [2008] 215 CTR 489 (RAJ.), (iii) CIT v/s Ashok Kumar Soni 291 ITR 172 (Raj.), 9 ITA 1290 & 1291/JP/2019_ Jaisingh Yadav Vs ACIT (iv) Krishan Lal Shiv Chand Rai vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1973 88 ITR 293 P H- (v) Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs Income tax Officer [2015] 59 taxmann.com 69 (Andhra Pradesh and T…

Sh. Romi Lal Nanda, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 792/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri R.S. Singhvi, CA &For Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 148

…cument seized in the form of Money Receipt is true and genuine. It has not been proved otherwise by the Appellant by producing some other cogent evidence. 9.13 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala & Anr., 91 ITR 18 (SC) have held the proposition that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. Therefore, it was open to the Appellant who had made the statement to show that it was incorrect. Appellant has not produced any material to show that the statement made by him was incorrect. 9.14 It is further s…

DCIT CC 7(2), Mumbai vs. Manba Finance Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 6606/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jul 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Ram Lal Negi

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod KumarFor Respondent: Shri J.P. Bairagra
Section 68

…onsidering their retractions, the A.O. has not brought anything to show that the loans taken by the appellant are bogus. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co.Ltd vs State of Kerala (1973)91 ITR 18(SC) where it was held that "an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It is open to the person who made admission to show that it is incorrect." Further, the A.O., inspite of M/s. Manba Finance Ltd. requests from the assessee, has not provided for cross examination of Shri Pravin Jain and…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 392/JODH/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…it cannot be said that the statement received during search is free from all ambiguity and doubt and it is quite likely that certain vital facts may be omitted or ignored or incorrectly stated [Palinode Rubber Produce Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1971) 91 ITR 18 (SC)]. 9 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT An admission of fact made by an assessee constitutes an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. It is rebuttable and it is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect. [G. Morgues & Bros. Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (S…

Satya Narayan Choudhary, Udaipur vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Udaipur

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

ITA 266/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur19 Mar 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma & Shri Sandeep Gosainsatya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aappc 9260 P Satya Narayan Choudhary, Vs A.C.I.T., 58, Gokulpura, North Ayad, Central Circle-1, Udaipur-313001. Udaipur.

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(3)Section 69Section 69A

…it cannot be said that the statement received during search is free from all ambiguity and doubt and it is quite likely that certain vital facts may be omitted or ignored or incorrectly stated [Palinode Rubber Produce Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1971) 91 ITR 18 (SC)]. 9 ITA 266 & 392/Jodh/2019 Satya Nr. Choudhary Vs ACIT An admission of fact made by an assessee constitutes an important piece of evidence but it is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted. It is rebuttable and it is open to the assessee who made admission to show that it is incorrect. [G. Morgues & Bros. Vs. C.I.T. (1973) 88 ITR 432 (S…

Jypore Manufaturing Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. JCIT(OSD), Jaipur

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT -DR
Section 153ASection 153C

…verted by any authority below. The following case laws are quoted for the proposition that assessee based on cogent reasons and material can amend, retract or withdraw any surrender of income:- (a) Pullanguegode Rubber & Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala 91 ITR 18 (Supreme Court) An admission is an important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive and it is open based on evidence for the person who made the admission to show that it is incorrect. (b) Jain Trading Co. v/s ITO (2007) 17 SOT 574 (MUM) Addition on the basis of admission made during survey retracted during assessment. An ass…

Dr. K.R. Rajashekar Reddy, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Bangalore

ITA 21/BANG/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Jan 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri A.K.Garodiaita No.21(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dr.K.R.Rajashekar Reddy, No.1, 6Th Floor, Okayard Apartments, 38Th Cross, East End Road, 9Th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 069 Panno.Abgpr1285F Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1) Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S. Tamil Selvam, Jcit

For Appellant: Shri V. Chandrashekar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Tamil Selvam, JCIT
Section 54F

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES : “B”, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.21(Bang)/2011 (Assessment Year : 2006-07) Dr.K.R.Rajashekar Reddy, No.1, 6th Floor, OKAYARD Apartments, 38th Cross, East End Road, 9th Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore-560 069 PANNo.ABGPR1285F Appellant Vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle-5(1) Bangalore Respondent Appellant by : Shri V. Chandrashekar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri S. Tamil Selvam, JCIT Date of hearing : 14-01-2020 Date of pronouncement : 22-01-2020 O R D E R PER SHRI N.V.VASUD…

Shri Tarachand Khatri, Jabalpur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jabalpur

In the result, Ground No.1

ITA 21/JAB/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur17 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Sanjay Arora

For Appellant: Shri Pawan Ved, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri H.P. Meena, D.R
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 153D

…itled to show and prove that an admission made by him was in fact not correct and true.” 13 ITA.No.21/JAB/2019 Shri Tarachand Khatri, Jabalpur. 5.2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co., vs., State of Kerala & Another [1973] 91 ITR 18 (SC) held that “assessee should be given an opportunity to show that admission is incorrect or does not show correct state of facts.” 5.3. Since in the present case the letter Dated 05.01.2016 was qualified and subject to documents to be supplied by the A.O, it is clear that admission of the assessee in the said letter was not correct and true bec…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Chetan R. Shah (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5781/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N.Prasad & Shri G. Manjunathadcit,Cc-6(3) Vs. M/S Chetan R.Shah (Huf) Room No.1926, 19Th Floor 702, Marathon Max, Air India Building Kailash Bunglow Nariman Point Lala Devidayal Road Mumbai-400 021 Mulund(West) Mumbai-400 080 Pan/Gir No.Aaahc9579E Appellant) .. (Respondent)

Section 133A

…uld require some corroborative material for the A.O to proceed to make additions on the basis of such statement. We find that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber 23 Chetan R.Shah (HUF) Produce Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala& Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC), had observed, that an admission is an extremely important piece of evidence but it cannot be said that it is conclusive. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court that it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. Relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court, we find, that a coordinate bench of…

Jayesh S Mehta vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

In the result, we do not find any merit in the

ITA/1/2010HC Karnataka08 Jan 2020

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,RAVI V HOSMANI

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 158BSection 260

…than the returned income. In support of aforesaid submissions, reference has been made to the decisions in the case of ‘BHANDARI METALS & ALLOYS LTD. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA’ 136 STC 292 (KAR) AND ‘PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF KERALA’ 91 ITR 18 (SC). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has submitted that the Assessing Officer, in compliance with the directions issued by the Tribunal as contained in the order dated 17.12.2007, has assessed the gross profit at 2%. It is further submitted that the appellant himself had returned undisclosed income of `62,27,305/-…

Shri Sayyed Hamid Ali, Ujjain vs. The ACIT Circle 2(1), Ujjain

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 38/IND/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Dec 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2012-13 Sayyed Hamid Ali Acit-2(1) बनाम/ (Prop. Fairdeal Steel) 60-A, Ujjain Vs. Industrial Area Maxi Road, Ujjain (Appellant) (Revenue) Pan: Acmpa7063M Appellant By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manish Borad, A.M: This Appeal At The Instance Of Assessee Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Ujjain, (In Short ‘Cit’), Dated 30.11.2016 Which Is Arising Out Of The Order U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961(Hereinafter Called As The ‘Act’) Framed On 10.03.2015 By Acit- 2(1), Ujjain.

Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…ntention Ld. counsel for the assessee referred and relied following Judgments: 1. CIT v. Radha Kishan Goel (2006) 8 (J) ITCL 260 (AllHe) : (2005) 278 JTR 454 (All) : (2006) 152 Taxman 290 (All), 2. Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala (1973) 91 ITR 18(SC) 3. Paul Mathews & Sons v. CIT [2003J 263 ITR 101 (Ker.) Hon'ble Kerala High Court 4. Ashok Hanilal Thakkar vs. ACIT-279 ITR 143 (I.T.A.T.-AHM) 5. Chawla Brothers (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT (20 43 SOT 651 (Trib. Mum.) 6. CIT vs. Gulmohar Traders 2016 28 ITJ 382 (Trib-Indore). 10. Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently argued support…