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

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 5267/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

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 5266/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…

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 5265/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…

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 5264/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…

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 3746/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 3745/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…

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 3744/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2019AY 2015-16

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…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 20(2), Mumbai vs. Shri Joitkumar B. Jain, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5638/MUM/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri O.P. Meena, Hon'Bleasst. Commissioner Of V. Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain Income Tax – 20(2) Room No. 12, 1St Floor, Room No. 217, 2Nd Floor, New Municipal Building, Piramal Chambers, R.S. Nimkiar Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai – 400 008 Mumbai-400 012 Pan: Aabpj 9794 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.C. Shah Department By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra

For Appellant: Shri V.C. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra
Section 133(6)Section 68

…rading Co. Ltd. v. CIT (49 ITR 723) (iii) Sarogi Credit Corporation v. CIT (103 ITR 344) (iv) CIT v. Vrindavan Pvt. Ltd., in ITA.No. 71 of 2015 dated 12th August, 2015 (v) Northern Bengal Jute Trading Co. v. CIT 970 ITR 407) (vi) LajwantiSial & Others v. CIT (30 ITR 228) 15. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On a perusal of the Assessment Order, we find that Assessing Officer made addition u/s. 68 of the Act mainly on the ground 11 Shri Joit Kumar B. Jain that the creditors have not responded, only meager incomes were shown by the creditors, truncated bank stateme…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 295/JODH/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…tion unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality. In this respect he relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (2) R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), (3) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). (4) CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). (5) CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). 15 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers That it is an admitted fact in this case as is appearing on proper appreciation of the paper that the loose paper does not reflect the date of transaction, nature of transaction,…

ACIT, Udaipur vs. M/S. Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Ltd., Udaipur

ITA 180/JODH/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & A.C.I.T., Vs. M/S Ankit Chirag Developers Pvt. Central Circle-1, Ltd., Udaipur. 54-55, Rajdeep, New Fatehpura, Udaipur. Pan No. Aagca 9897 C

Section 132ASection 254(2)

…tion unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality. In this respect he relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (1) Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 (SC) (2) R.B.N.J. Naidu v/s CIT 29 ITR 194 (Nag), (3) Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. v/s CIT 32 ITR 56 (All). (4) CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). (5) CIT v/s Shalimar Buildwell Pvt Ltd 86 CCH 250(All). 15 ITA 180 & 295/Jodh/2016 ACIT Vs M/s Ankit Chirag Developers That it is an admitted fact in this case as is appearing on proper appreciation of the paper that the loose paper does not reflect the date of transaction, nature of transaction,…

DCIT 15(3), Mumbai vs. Trimurthi Developers, Navi Mumbai

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

ITA 5052/MUM/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Apr 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm

Section 143(3)

…ssing Officer has to relate his estimate to some evidence or material on record vide State of Orissa vs. Maharajah Shri B.P. Singh Deo (1970) 76ITR 690 (SC); Raghubar Mandal Harihar Mandal vs. State of Bihar (1957) 8 STC 770 (SC): R.B. J. Naidu vs. CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag); Dturajlal Girdharilal vs. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Simijmal Champalal vs. CIT (1967) 66 ITR 396 (Pat); Omar Salay Mohamed Sail vs. CIT (1959) 37 ITR 151 (SC); International Forest Co. vs. CIT (1975) 101 ITR 721 (J & K), An assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is in…

Radhey Ram Godara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 349/JPR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma, Addl.CIT -DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234A

…allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly 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). All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). Kindly refer a very recent decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held:…

Sanjay Singh, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6097/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini

For Appellant: Sh. L. M. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr. DR
Section 68

….) " RBN Naidu Vs CIT (1956) 29 ITR 194 (Nag.) " Chunnilal Tikamchand Coal Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1955) 30 ITR 181 (SC) " Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) " Sri Ram Tandon Vs CIT (1961) 42 ITR 689 (All.) " Kanpur Steel Co. Ltd. Vs CIT (1957) 32 ITR 56 (All.) " Ali Huesin Vs STO (1988) 68 STC 319 (Ori) " Ashok Electro Diamonds Vs Jt. CTO (1971) 28 STC 21 (Mad.) " EMC Works Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO (1963) 49 ITR 650 (All.) " Mahboob Singh Subhash Chand Arhati Vs CST (1988) STC 229 " Munnalal Murlidhar Vs CIT (1971) 79 ITR 540 (All.) " KS Seth Gopikisan Agarwal Vs AC of ST (1971) Tax LR 355 (MP) " Pravin C…

Tirupati College of Technical Education Society, Jaipur vs. CIT(Exemptions), Jaipur

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

ITA 452/JPR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Mar 2017AY 2012-13
For Appellant: Shri Sharvan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, (CIT)
Section 10Section 143(3)

…allegation remains a mere allegation unless proved. Suspicion cannot take the place of reality, are the settled principles kindly 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). All the addition deserves deletion on this submission alone. The AO neither speak a single word on the evidences filed by the appellant nor rebutted the same with the help of any supporting evidence. Also refer CIT v/s Kulwant Rai 291 ITR 36( Del). 18.1 Kindly refer decision in Labhchand Bohra V/s ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (Raj.)- Held: cash credi…

Vasantha Nagaraj, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(7), Bangalore

In the result, the quantum appeal is partly allowed and the

ITA 1180/BANG/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao(Smc)

For Appellant: Shri H.N.Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Shankar Prasad, K. JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 69Section 71(1)

…d to the assessee. He has relied upon the following decisions. a) Mrs Aartiraman Vs DCIT ITA MP 245/Bang/2009 (6-8) b) DCIT Vs G.Selva Kumar –ITA NO.867/Bang/2010 (12-14) c) A.F Ferguson & Co. Mumbai Vs JCIT –ITA No.5037/M/2012(16-19) d) RBNS Naidu Vs CIT 29 ITR 194 (20-23) 12. On the other hand, learned DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee had failed to offer the said amount of Rs.1,45,250/- which is rightly brought to tax by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). He has further submitted that the assessee has shifted its stand before the CIT(A) by claimed the said amount pe…