R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT

32 ITR 56High Court1957#1195 most cited

What is R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT authority for?

When an assessee explains the source of high denomination notes deposited during demonetisation as part of their recorded cash balance, and the explanation is largely supported by the books of accounts, a significant addition as undisclosed income may not be justified.

95

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT · Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. · 32 ITR 56 · Section 68 · Section 69A · Section 115BBE · demonetisation · high denomination notes · unexplained cash balance · burden of proof · undisclosed income · source explanation

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 68Section 69ASection 115BBESection 142(1)

Issues it is cited on

section 115besection 69dpreponderance of probabilitysection 69bsection 80cinterest u/s 234asource of sourcebusiness expediencycreditworthiness of the creditoraddition under section 68section 145(3)colourable device

Judgments citing R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT

Kamlaben Thakorbhai Patel, Na

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 20/SRT/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.20/Srt/2021 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: (2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Kamlaben Thakorbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, Ward-3, Kanbiwad, At & Po – Surkhai, Navsari. Tal - Chikahli, Navsari-396521. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Biepp5895F (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr 25/05/2022 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e unaccounted income. The assessee is an agriculturist and AO has not pinpointed any other source of income from whom assessee has earned income. For that reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RBNJ Naidu v. CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag) wherein it was held that “when an assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the ITO to prove that the assessee received income and that the assessee cannot prove the negative”. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gopalbhai V. Bhoiwala Vs. ITO [ITA No.…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 869/JPR/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 867 & 869/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHPPB 0077 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj…

Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 867/JPR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Sept 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 867 & 869/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 Cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Ahppb 0077 J Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 20/07/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 15/09/2021 Vkns'K@ Order

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES “A”, JAIPUR Jh lanhi x®lkÃa] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 867 & 869/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years :2008-09 & 2009-10 cuke Shri Satya Narayan Bairwa, I.T.O., Vs. 97/77, Shipra Path, Ward-2(4), Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). Jaipur. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHPPB 0077 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Shravan Kumar Gupta (Adv.) jktLo dh vksj…

Smt. Ruksana, Jhalawar vs. ITO, Ward, Jhalawar

ITA 192/JPR/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 192/Jp/2020 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Smt. Ruksana, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. L/H Of Late Sh. Mohammed Salim, Ward-Jhalawar. Kunjda Street, Bada Bazar, Jhalawar City, Jhalawar-326001. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Bjeps 1293 M Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 08/04/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Kota Dated 21/09/2017 For The A.Y. 2011-12. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee In This Appeal Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Dated 15.03.2014 Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Being Debatable Issue & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2.1 Rs.13,45,442/-: The Assessing Officer Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Invoking The Provision Of Section 145(3). The Provision So Invoked By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Being Totally Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts On The Record & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 234

…mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion may be strong however cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principleskindly refer Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) also refer R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All).Also refer CIT v/s KulwantRai 291 ITR 36( Del). In CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All) it has been held that the AO made the addition merely on suspicion which was not desirable in the eye of law. 8. Blind Estimation of other cities turnover: The ld. AO estimated the other cities sales at Rs.12,00,000/- when admittedly there wa…

Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Sikar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward, Neemkathana

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 173/JPR/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 173/Jp/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2014-15 Shri Kailash Chand Yadav, Cuke I.T.O., Vs. S/O-Shri Chhotu Ram Yadav, Ward-Neemkathana Dhani Amar Singh Wali Mundru, Tehsil-Srimadhopur, Sikar. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aiupy 2977 J Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 25/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/06/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 23/01/2019 For The A.Y. 2014-15. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Rws 147 Dated 19/12/2017 As Well As The Action Taken U/S 147/148 By The Ld. Ao Are Bad In Law, Invalid, Illegal & On Facts Of The Case, For Want Of Jurisdiction, Barred By Limitation & Various Other Reasons & Hence The Same May Kindly Be Quashed. 2. Rs.13,00,000/-: The Ld. Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law As Well As On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 13,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Cash Deposit Without Invoking Any Provision Of The It Act & By Ignoring The Material Evidences On Assumption Or Suspicion. Hence The Addition So Made By The Ld. Ao & Sustained By 2

For Appellant: Shri Shravan Kr. Gupta (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234

…llegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles. He relied on the following case laws: i. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) ii. R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), iii. Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). 13 ITA 173/JP/2019 _ Kailash Chand Yadav Vs ITO iv. Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.) v. Kanhaialal Jangid vs. ACIT (2008) 8 DTR 38 (RAJ.), (217 CTR 354) vi. Aravali Trading Co. v/s ITO 8 DTR 199 vii. CIT V/S Abdul Aziz 72 DTR 216(Chhattisgarh) viii. Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. M/s. ARL Infratech, Ltd., (D.B. Income Tax Ap…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5858/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…tisfaction of the A.O." the courts are of the view that the A.O cannot reject the ITA Nos. 5857 & 5858/Del/2017 57 Harvansh P. Chawla assessee's explanation arbitrarily. Hon'ble Bombay High Court of Nagpur Bench in very old case of Naidu (RBNJ) vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag) held that where the explanation furnished by an assessee about the amount credited is prima facie reasonable, the said explanation cannot be rejected on capricious and arbitrary grounds. (iii) That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs K.S Kannan Kunhi (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) in para 6 of the judgment expressed its displeasure explanat…

ACIT, Central Circle- 5, New Delhi vs. Harvansh P Chawla, New Delhi

ITA 5857/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 5857/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Ita No. 5858/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Acit, Vs Sh. Harvansh P. Chawla, Central Circle-5, 707, Kailash Building, 26, K.G. New Delhi Marg, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Addpc7559G Assessee By : Sh. Rohit Tiwari, Adv. Revenue By : Ms. Sunita Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 21.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2021

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 24

…tisfaction of the A.O." the courts are of the view that the A.O cannot reject the ITA Nos. 5857 & 5858/Del/2017 57 Harvansh P. Chawla assessee's explanation arbitrarily. Hon'ble Bombay High Court of Nagpur Bench in very old case of Naidu (RBNJ) vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag) held that where the explanation furnished by an assessee about the amount credited is prima facie reasonable, the said explanation cannot be rejected on capricious and arbitrary grounds. (iii) That Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs K.S Kannan Kunhi (1973) 87 ITR 395 (SC) in para 6 of the judgment expressed its displeasure explanat…

Schindler India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 8(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 7808/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K.Pradhanschindler India Private Limtied, 401-B, Delphi, Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai – 400 076 Pan: Aaecs 1548J ...... Appellant

For Appellant: S/Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Nishant ShahFor Respondent: Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Section 143(3)

…s already stated, the Bangalore Bench of ITAT in the case of G. Selvakumar (supra) has already taken the view that assessment order based only on the AIR will not stand in the eye of law. Further, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of RBNJ Naidu v. CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag) has held that when an assessee denies that he is in receipt of income from a particular source, it is for the ITO to prove that the assessee received income and that the assessee cannot prove the negative. In this regard, as early as on 23.01.2012 the assessee has written a letter to the CIT (Computer Operations), Banglaore-I denying the cor…

Sri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 104/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.N.Charysri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Vs. Ito, C/O. Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, Ward-1(3), Flat No. 12, 2Nd Floor, Sheel Tara Ghaziabad House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi Pan: Azpps2130R (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Timsi Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Chunilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1955) 27 ITR 602 (Pat), Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC), Lalchand BhagatAmbica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC), Sri Ram Tandon v. CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All) and Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)]. 36. Mehta Parikh & Co. v. CIT (1956) 30 ITR 181 (SC) and Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC)]. 37. ITO v. Suresh Kalmadi (1988) 32 TTJ (Pune-Trib)(TM) 300. 38. [DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) Case laws on which assessee has relied on Gifts. 1 ITOv.DharamVirTuli (2003) 81 TTJ (Chd-Trib) 1028. Similarly in ITO v. MatadinS…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2751/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…loan and repayment. An explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete (i) the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- ITA 2750 & 2751/MUM/2019/A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 SHREE SHANKAR SAREES 11 made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act and (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.…

Shree Shankar Sarees, Mumbai vs. ITO 18 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2750/MUM/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 & Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Mr. Bhupendra Shah, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra, DR
Section 132Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…loan and repayment. An explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete (i) the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- ITA 2750 & 2751/MUM/2019/A.Y.2008-09 & 2009-10 SHREE SHANKAR SAREES 11 made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act and (ii) disallowance of interest of Rs.…

Shree Bhavani Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for A

ITA 1850/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ttempt to verify it. An explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete (i) the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act and (ii) addition of commission of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the 2nd & 3rd grounds of appeal are allowed. ITA 1848, 184…

Shree Bhavani Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for A

ITA 1849/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ttempt to verify it. An explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete (i) the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act and (ii) addition of commission of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the 2nd & 3rd grounds of appeal are allowed. ITA 1848, 184…

Shree Bhavani Developer, Mumbai vs. ITO 21 (3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals for A

ITA 1848/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 & Assessment Year: 2012-13 & Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Kumar Parida, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…ttempt to verify it. An explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above factual matrix and position of law, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and delete (i) the addition of Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO u/s. 68 of the Act and (ii) addition of commission of Rs.20,000/-. Thus, the 2nd & 3rd grounds of appeal are allowed. ITA 1848, 184…

Income Tax Officer 15(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S.Saubhagya Realtor Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 2335/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Otwani, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Nitin Waghmode, DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…OR PRIVATE LIMITED 7 In explanation, prima facie reasonable cannot be rejected on capricious or arbitrary grounds or on mere suspicion or on imaginary or irrelevant grounds. In this regard, we fruitfully refer to the decision in R.B.N.J. Naidu v. CIT, [1956] 29 ITR 194 (Nag.), Lajwanti Sial v. CIT, [1956] 30 ITR 228 (Nag.). In view of the above, factual scenario and position of law, we uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A). 7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31.10.2019 (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 31.10.2019 S. Samanta P.S.(On Tour) Copy of the Ord…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5269/DEL/2019[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” xxx. Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under: “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has been mentioned by the Tribunal in t…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Central Circle-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3743/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” xxx. Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under: “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has been mentioned by the Tribunal in t…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3742/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” xxx. Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under: “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has been mentioned by the Tribunal in t…

Agson Global Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT CC-28, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 3741/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” xxx. Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under: “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has been mentioned by the Tribunal in t…

ACIT, Central Circle- 28, New Delhi vs. Agson Global Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and 6 appeals of the ld AO are dismissed

ITA 5268/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Goyal, CIT DR
Section 139Section 143Section 153A

…rejected as unreasonable. On the other hand the so-called estimate by the Tribunal is based on no reason and is purely arbitrary and cannot be upheld as legal.” xxx. Further, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All)opined as under: “when the assessee-company had given an explanation which was reasonable, the IT authorities could have been entitled to treat the sum of Rs. 32,000 as income from undisclosed sources only if there was some other material from which such inference could have been drawn. No other material has been mentioned by the Tribunal in t…