R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

75 ITR 33High Court1970#1805 most cited

What is R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT authority for?

The mere absence of customer addresses, particularly for cash sales, in the books of account is not a sufficient ground to reject the books or to cast suspicion on the genuineness of the transactions.

63

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT · 75 ITR 33 · rejection of books of account · section 145(3) · absence of customer addresses · cash sales genuineness · genuineness of transactions · section 68 addition · suspicion of transactions · books of account validity

Sections most often in play

Section 115BBESection 68Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 131

Issues it is cited on

section 115besection 69drejection of books of accountaddition under section 68section 145(3)addition u/s 68section 145section 158bcsection 44absection 115bbsection 115bsection 69b

Judgments citing R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT

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

…ound to give details of its customers in case of cash sales. Reliance in this regard is being placed upon the following case laws: a) The judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) "There is no necessity for assessee to maintain the addresses of customers and failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and when called for cannot give rise to suspicion with regard to genuineness of transactions" 499-Chd-2023 & C.O.09-Chd-2024 Shree Balaji Processors, Ludhiana 25 b) The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported at [1…

Priyanka Surana, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed

ITA 102/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sharwan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 68

…chaser filed their confirmation. Therefore, only the sales made and utilized for depositing the demonetized currency cannot be doubted for this reason. In the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand Sugar ... vs CIT , ... on 30 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 75 ITR 33 Bom “4. In our opinion, the assessee's account books are to be accepted, unless, on verification, they disclosed any faults or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. All the other transactions, except the cash transaction, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinised by the Income-tax Officer…

ITO Ward-51(5), Delhi vs. Ramesh Chander Rajput, Delhi

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

ITA 1189/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI VIMAL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…se, by any person, of goods Amount or services of any nature other than those exceeding two specified at Sl. Nos. I to 17 of this Table, if lakh rupees per any. transaction 30. The Appellant relies upon R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) V. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33, wherein Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that in the case of a cash transactions where the buyer takes the delivery of goods by paying in cash, in that scenario the seller is hardly bothers about the name and address of the purchaser. Relevant extract has been reproduced herein below: ITO vs. Ramesh Chander Rajput “… In the case of a cash tran…

Satish Chand Gupta, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 211/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur25 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dheeraj Borad, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 131Section 145(3)Section 250Section 69A

…ccordingly directed. 15 74 ITR 279 (Mys. H.C.) Vijay Traders vs. CIT The Hon’ble Mysore High court held that sanctity of regular books to be disturbed where it is impossible to compute profits there from 16 SATISH CHAND GUPTA VS ITO, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR (1970) 75 ITR 33 R.B. Jessaram The Hon’ble Bombay High court 16 Fatehchand (Sugar held that,’ in the case of a cash Department) vs. CIT, transaction where delivery of Bombay city II goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. The account books of an assessee cannot therefore be re…

ACIT CC-14, Delhi vs. Delhi Spot Bullion Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1965/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Sh. Anuj Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…s admittedly before the Assessing Officer, who has not pointed out any deficiency in them. There is no law which prohibits a trader or a manufacturer in making cash sales. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Deptt.) Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.) has held that sales can be in cash and it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. We find that so long as the availability of stock is there and there is nothing adverse against the cash memos issued by the assessee, such cash safes cannot be doubted. Here it is pertinent to note that the vol…

Fashion Zone, Ludhiana vs. JCIT, Ward III(2), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate and Shri Rishabh Marwah, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 145(3)Section 68

…n the same or to supply the same when called for cannot given rise to suspicion with regard to genuineness of the transaction and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) Vs. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 33. 10.2 It was submitted that there is nothing which is in the nature of undisclosed in the case of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer has made the addition by treating the cash deposits out of regular books of accounts as Undisclosed income of the Assessee which is totally incorrect. It was submitted that the Courts and Tribunal have held time and…

Manuj Jain HUF, Ludhiana vs. PCIT -1, Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 392/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 263Section 263(1)

…ame has already been offered to tax in the form of sales and reliance in this regard is being placed on the following judgments:- (i) The judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT reported at [1970] 75 ITR 33 (BOM.) "There is no necessity for assessee to maintain the addresses of customers and failure to maintain the same or to supply them as and when called for cannot give rise to suspicion with regard to genuineness of transactions" (ii) The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala reported at [1972] 83 ITR 484 (Kerala): M. Durai Raj v. CIT. (iii) M/s Asian Conso…

DCIT, CC 5(2), Central Range -5, Mumbai vs. Manubhai Gems Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the C.O. of the assessee is rejected

ITA 659/MUM/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram & Sh. Rahul
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 69A

…the ld. AR relied on the decisions of the co-ordinate bench in the case of DCIT Vs. Kartik Construction Co. in ITA No. 2292/Mum/2016 dated 23.02.2018 and also the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fetehchand Vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33. 12 ITA No. 659 & C.O. 130//Mum/2023 Manubhai Gems Private Ltd. 12. We have heard the parties and perused the material on record. During the course of search cash totaling to Rs. 31,35,530/- and Rs. 7,67,910/- were found the premises of the assessee and its directors. The AO made an addition of Rs. 35,00,000/- of the cash seized stating that the a…

Balaji Jewellers, Jaipur vs. ACIT CC -4, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 433/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Malik, CIT
Section 115BSection 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…ncome-tax (Appeals) has not committed any error, therefore, the issue is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. The appeal stands dismissed.” (f) R.B. JessaramFatehchandSugar ... vsCIT , ... on 30 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 75 ITR 33 Bom “4. In our opinion, the assessee's account books are to be accepted, unless, on verification, they disclosed any faults or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. All the other transactions, except the cash transaction, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinised by the Income-tax Officer…

Rukmani Jewellers Private Limited, Jaipur vs. DCIT Cir.-4 Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234ASection 68

…d with same set of particulars. Therefore, only the sales made and utilized for depositing the demonetized currency cannot be doubted for this reason. In the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand Sugar ... vs CIT , ... on 30 March, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 75 ITR 33 Bom “4. In our opinion, the assessee's account books are to be accepted, unless, on verification, they disclosed any faults or defects, which cannot be reasonably and satisfactorily explained by the assessee. All the other transactions, except the cash transaction, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinised by the Income-tax Officer…

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gotam Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

…nce was placed on the following judicial pronouncements : (i) Smt. Harshila Chordia vs. ITO (2008) 298 ITR 349 (Raj. HC) (ii) ACIT & Anr. Vs. Hirapanna Jewellers & Anr (2021) 212 TTJ 117 (ITAT Vishakhapatnam) (iii) R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bombay HC) (iv) Lalchand Bhagat Ambika Ram vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) The ld. A/R placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal in the case of ACIT Central Circle-1, Jaipur vs. Shri Mahendra Kumar Agarwal in ITA No. 172/JP/2022 wherein the Coordinate Bench of the Jaipur Tribunal observed at pages 54-56 of its…

Manasi Jewellers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 819/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blemanasi Jewellers Pvt. Ltd V. Dcit, Central Circle 3(4) Office No. 37, 97/101 Room No. 1915 Mumbadevi Diamond Premises Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai- 400021 Sheikh Memon Street Zaveri Bazar, Mumbai- 400002 Pan: Aabcm5354P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153CSection 69Section 69A

…g in cash, they themselves preferred buying gold for less than Rs. 2,00,000/- so that they are not mandated to provide the identification proof The Appellant can in no way be blamed for this. Bombay High Court R B JessaramFatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bom HC)] held that in the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser there was no necessity whatsoever for the Appellant to have maintained the addresses of cash customers, the failure to maintain the same or to supply…

Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1)(1), Surat

In the result, ground No. 1& 2 of the appeal are allowed

ITA 181/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd., I.T.O. 405, Devratna Apartment, Char Ward-1(1)(1), Vs. Khana Chakla, Rampura Main Road, Surat. Surat-395006 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aahca 8682 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 68

…e following decisions: (i) CIT Vs Vishal Overseas Exports Limited Tax Appeal No. 2471 of 2009 (Gujarat High Court) (ii) ACIT Vs Hirapanna Jewellers (2021) 128 taxmann.com 291 (Vishakhapatnam Tribunal) (iii) R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) Vs CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33 (Bombay High Court) (iv) M/s Nitisha silk Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ITA No. 896/Ahd/2011 (Ahmedabad Tribunal) 8 Amrita Gem Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (v) Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs ACIT (2023) 151 taxmann.com 339 (Jaipur Tribunal). 8. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR for the revenue supported the orders of lower authorities. The ld.Sr.DR for the revenue submits t…

Mahesh Wood Products Private Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1949/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Amit Shuklaasstt. Year: 2017-18 M/S. Mahesh Wood Products Vs. Asstt. Commissioner Of Private Limited 2042, Income Tax, Central Katra Tambacco, Khari Baoli, Circle-13, New Delhi. Central Delhi – 110 006 Pan Aaacm0118Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr
Section 143(3)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON’BLE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2017-18 M/s. Mahesh Wood Products Vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Private Limited 2042, Income Tax, Central Katra Tambacco, Khari Baoli, Circle-13, New Delhi. Central Delhi – 110 006 PAN AAACM0118Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Suresh Gupta, CA Department by: Dr. Maninder Kaur, Sr. Dr Date of Hearing 13.06.2023 Date of pronouncement 26.07.2023 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM The aforesaid appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 19.07…

DCIT5(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Suronik Overseas Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 940/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Us: “1."Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Right In Deleting The Addition Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Without Appreciating The Findings Of The Ao That Despite Ample Opportunities The Assessee Has Failed To Prove The Source Of The Cash Deposits."

For Appellant: Shri Rashmikant C. Modi &For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 69Section 69A

…re is No obligation on the part of assessee to keep record of address of cash customers. This has been held in the following judicial pronouncements - Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. JessaramFatehchand (Sugar Dept.) vs Commissioner of Income-tax 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) held that: "The ITO had scrutinised closely the account books of the assessee and had found no fault with them excepting that the addresses of the customers for the cash sales of sugar had not been entered. It was not found by him that there were any other reasons for not accepting the said cash sales, such as, for instance, the sales bein…

ITO, Ward-50(1), Kolkata vs. Joydeb Kundu, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 8/KOL/2021[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata16 May 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(2)Section 145(3)Section 69A

…of outstanding dues in demonetized notes. In this regard, I do not find any abnormality in such situation where the appellant had no option but to accept the payments in cash. 5.4.5 It is observed that in R. B. Jessaram Fetehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. CIT (1969) 75 ITR 33 (Bom.), Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held that where all the other transactions, except the cash transactions, which were verifiable, have been verified and scrutinized by the Income-tax Officer and there is nothing wrong whatsoever found with them and as to the cash transactions also, the quantity of sugar sold has not been disputed and the rates…

Mukesh Soni, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 46/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Dheeraj Borad (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

…t of judicial pronouncement annexed herewith including the cases of Vijay Traders vs. CIT reported in 74 ITR 279 (Mys. H.C.) and The Hon’ble Bombay High court in the case of R.B. JessaramFatehchand (Sugar Department) vs. CIT, Bombay city II reported in (1970) 75 ITR 33 wherein the hon’ble court observed that in the case of a cash transaction where delivery of goods is taken against cash payment, it is hardly necessary for the seller to bother about the name and address of the purchaser. 16. It is further submitted that treatment of cash deposit of Rs. 32,71,000 (Out of total cash deposit of Rs. 33,71,000 during d…

Shri Raj Kumar ( M/S Radhika Sales Corp ), Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 3 (3), Amritsar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 195/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 250oSection 68

…ation of sales) in bank account and could not have been treated as undisclosed income of assessee and accordingly, impugned addition made by Assessing Officer was not justified.” R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) v. Commissioner of Income- tax ii. [1970] 75 ITR 33 (Bombay) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY “Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 13 of the Indian Income-Tax Act, 1922] - Method of accounting - Rejection of accounts - On assessee's inability to supply addresses of purchasers who purchased goods on cash, ITO rejected assessee 's books of account showing result in respect of cash sa…

Thakordas Parekh & Sons, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari

In the result, ground No. 2 & 3

ITA 167/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.167/Srt/2022 (Ay 2017-18) (Hearing In Physical Court) Thakordas Parekh & Sons Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Bazar Street, Chikhli, Navsari, 204, 2Nd Floor, Vs Navsari-396530 Income Tax Office, Pan No: Aabft 4593 J Charpool, Awabaug, Navsari-396445 अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rasesh Shah, C.A राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 05.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 30.03.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac/Ld.Cit(A)”] Dated 23.03.2022 For Assessment Year 2017-18, Which In Turn Arises From The Addition Made By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Navsari / Assessing Officer In Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 30.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case As Well As Law On The Subject, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Thakordas Parekh & Sons Of Assessing Officer In Rejecting The Books Of Accounts U/S 145(3) Of The Act.

Section 115BSection 144Section 145(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…specifying any defect found by Assessing Officer. To support such submission, Ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the following decisions:  CIT vs. Amitbhai Gunvantbhai [1981] 129 ITR 573 (Guj), 10 Thakordas Parekh & Sons  R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand vs. CIT 75 ITR 33,  CIT vs. Vikram Plastics 239 ITR 161 (Guj)  St.Teresa’s Oil Mill vs. State of Kerala 76 ITR 365 (Ker) 8. On the addition of Rs.18,07,500/- on account of unexplained cash credits, the ld. AR for the assessee submits that Assessing Officer wrongly rejected the books of account of assessee and no addition can be made as increased sales was on accou…

Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 149/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Sh. Rajeev Sogani (C.A.) &For Respondent: Smt Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) a
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…been upheld by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Agson Global (P.) Ltd [2022] 134 taxmann.com 256 (Delhi). [CLC Page 280-309] 4.8. Attention is also invited towards the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand v. CIT (1970) 75 ITR 33, wherein the Hon’ble High Court at Para 2 of the order held as under: “In these circumstances, the reason given by the Income-tax Officer for rejecting the book results shown by the assessee’s accounts or for not accepting the cash transactions as genuine cannot be accepted as good and sufficient unless there was an obligation on the part of the as…