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

Sureshkumar Ghewarchand Hundia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on both account as discussed above

ITA 4323/MUM/2012[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.C. Sharma() & Shri Amit Shukla () Assessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri. Vikram BatraFor Respondent: Shri. M. Subramanian
Section 271(1)

…pply the name and addresses of those customers towhom cash sales were made because the assessee has not been maintaining the records of cash sale includingthe name of customers right form the beginning. In case of R.B.Jessaram Fetehchand ( Sugar Dept) Vs. CIT 75 ITR 33 Bom wherein delivery of goods was being taken against the cash payment. It was held that the name and address of the purchasers are necessary to be maintained. Regarding findings of the assessing officer that entries of Rs. 1.5 crores was not found in the cash book on that day, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assesse submittedthat in mode…

Sureshkumar Ghewaechand Hundia, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC-14, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed on both account as discussed above

ITA 4660/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Rajesh Kumar.

For Appellant: Shri M. SubramanianFor Respondent: Shri B. C. S. Naik

…ly the name and addresses of those customers to whom cash sales were made because the assessee has not been maintaining the records of cash sale including the name of customers right form the beginning. In case of R.B.Jessaram Fetehchand ( Sugar Dept) Vs. CIT 75 ITR 33 Bom wherein delivery of goods was being taken against the cash payment. It was held that the name and address of the purchasers are necessary to be maintained. Regarding findings of the assessing officer that entries of Rs. 1.5 crores was not found in the cash book on that day, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assesse submitted that in mod…

Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, all the appeals of the department as well as the cross objections of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri C.M. Garg

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gajanand Meena, CIT-DR
Section 133ASection 145Section 153A

…nce can be drawn against the assessee merely on the ground that the parties to whom it had made sales were not available. In this regard reliance was placed on the following judgments:- R.B. Jessaram Fatehchand (Sugar Dept.) V. Commissioner of I) Income-Tax 75 ITR 33 (Bom) Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, New ... Vs Department Of II) Income Tax On 13 May, 2014 ITA No. 1220/D/2011 The CIT-II Versus Jindal Dyechem Industries Pvt Ltd (ITA III) 283/2011 & ITA 343/2011) Dated - 18 April 2012 (Delhi High Court) Income Tax Officer Versus Surana Traders. ITD 092, 212, IV) TTJ 093 v) Kishore Jeram Bhai Khaniya, Prop. Po…