Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

41 ITR 685Supreme Court of India1961#1688 most cited

What is Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT authority for?

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings, as each assessment year is a distinct unit. Mere entries in the accounts of a third party are not sufficient proof to make additions to an assessee's income.

67

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,005 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh · 41 ITR 685 · Supreme Court · res judicata · estoppel · income tax assessment · distinct assessment years · binding nature of assessment · Section 143 · previous year · burden of proof · third party accounts

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115BBESection 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 153CSection 269SS

Issues it is cited on

section 29section 28income-tax officersection 26section 10income from other sourcessection 80previous yearsection 143(1)transferappeal before the tribunalperson

Judgments citing Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT

ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed while the Revenue’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4243/MUM/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4303/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. Asst. Cit-6(3), बनाम/ 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, Vs. Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Assessee) : (Revenue) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 4243/Mum/2009 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06) Asst. Cit-6(3), Laxmi Ventures (India) Ltd. बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Marg, 36/40, Mahalaxmi Bridge Arcade, Vs. Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020 Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400 034 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacl 1082 G (Revenue) (Assessee) : Assessee By : Shri Haridas Bhatt : Shri S. R. Singh Revenue By सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 20.4.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 30.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: These Are Cross Appeals, I.E. By The Assessee & The Revenue, Arising Out Of The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-Vi, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’For Short) Dated 20.5.2009, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting Its’ Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ Hereinafter) Dated 31.12.2007 For The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2005-06. 2

For Appellant: Shri Haridas Bhatt
Section 143(3)Section 14A

…ages 8-25) of the assessment order. The purchase/sale activity has been examined by him in detail and with reference to its different parameters, and considered in light of certain case laws in the matter, viz.: i. Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh vs. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC); ii. XYZ/ABC Equity Fund, In re [2001] 250 ITR 194; iii. A. V. Thomas and Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [1963] 48 ITR (SC) 67; iv. CIT vs. P. K. N. Co. Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 65 (SC); v. CIT vs. Associated Industrial Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [1971] 82 ITR 586 (SC); vi. G. Venkataswami Naidu & Co. vs. CIT (35 ITR 194); vii. CIT vs. Sutlej Cotton Mills Supply…

Mr. Chetan Kantilal Mehta, Mumbai vs. ACIT 25(3), Mumbai

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 637/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajendraassessment Year: 2007-08

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, सी,मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Rajendra, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mr. Chetan K. Mehta, ACIT-25(3), 2-3, Kothari House, C-11, R. No.308, बनाम/ 1st Floor, Oak Lane, Fort, Pratyaksh Kar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400001 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AAIPM2802J Assessment Year: 2007-08 ACIT-25(3), Mr. Chetan K. Mehta, C-11, R. No.308, 2-3, Kothari…

DCIT Cir - 6, Kolkata. vs. M/S K.B. Capital Markets Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1882/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…actions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the oper…

Kb Capital Markets (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I, .T Cir - 6, Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed, while the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1726/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 May 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 1882/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri D.S.Damle, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Subhra. Biswas, CIT(DR) &
Section 10Section 111ASection 14ASection 94(7)

…actions are carried out indicate systematic and organized activity with profit motive, then it would be a case of business profits and not capital gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the oper…

DCIT, Circle - 12, Kolkata vs. M/S. Hobb International Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the cross objection is partly allowed

ITA 1383/KOL/2010[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 May 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1383/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Niloy Baran Som JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…then it would be a case 5 6 ITA No.1383/Kol2010&C.O.92/Kol/2010 M/s. HobbInternational Pvt. Ltd. A.Yr.2004-05 of business profits and not capital gain. CIT Vs. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg. Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj); Raja Bahadur Viswshwara Singh Vs. CIT, 41 ITR 685 (SC). (d) Purchase without an intention to resell where they are sold under changed circumstances would be capital gains. CIT Vs. PKN, 60 ITR 65 (SC). Purchase with an intention to resell would render the gain profit on sale business profit depending on the circumstances of the case like nature and quantity of article purchased, nature of the oper…

ITO, Ward - 12(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Manimaya Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 439/KOL/2009[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] Assessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH ‘A’ KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM ] Assessment Year : 2005-06 I.T.O., Ward-12(4) , -versus- M/s. Manimaya Holdings Pvt.Ltd Kolkata Kolkata (PAN:AACCM0598E) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant: Shri Sallong yaden, Addl.CIT,Sr.DR For the Respondent: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Date of Hearing : 08.03.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 6.4.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM: This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 31.12.2008 of CIT(A) XXXII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2005-06. 2. Ground No.1 raised by the re…

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S Newtech Estate & Industries (P) Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2087/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.O.P.Kant

Section 268A

…to appreciate that it is not just the difference of opinion but the similar facts have been decided by various courts in favour of the revenue, in case of Chowringhee sales Bureau (P.) Ltd. vs CIT(1973) 87 ITR 542 (SC) & Raja Bahaddur Visheshvar Singh vs CIT 41 ITR 685(SC). I.T.A .No.-2087/Del/2011 4. The appellant craves to be allowed to add, delete or amend any other grounds of appeal.” 2. No one was present at the time of hearing on behalf of the assessee. Considering the amount at stake for the Revenue, the Ld. Sr. DR was required to address Circular No.21/2015 dated 10th December, 2015 of CBDT. Considerin…

Micron Instruments Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5065/DEL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaay: 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R.M. Mehta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri P. Damkanunja, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 271(1)Section 73

…eal nature of the transaction. The actual nature of the transaction must be looked into in order to determine as to whether the transactions constituted adventure in the nature of trade. The Supreme Court in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh vs. CIT : 41 ITR 685 held that purchase and sale of shares for substantial amount at frequent intervals would be treated as dealing in shares. In the assessee’s case, there is frequent buying and selling of securities by way of shares and units of mutual funds. It would thus be evident that the assessee is in business of dealing in shares. I am, therefore, in agreemen…

Addl. CIT, Ghaziabad vs. Shri Vinay Chandra, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 58/DEL/2011[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Mar 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)

…facts and circumstances of the case by ignoring the magnitude of transactions/Turnover in the shares made by the assessee, which is much beyond the magnitude of investment made by a common prudent investor. (Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh and others vs CIT(SC) 41 ITR 685). 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case by ignoring that the motive of the assessee is apparent from his practice of very frequent buying and selling shares for profit resulting in business income & not for earning dividends as a common prudent 2 ITA No.58/Del./2011 investor does by holding back his s…

I.T.O WD - 44(4), Kolkata vs. Sri Sailesh Jalan, Kolkata

In the result, appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1880/KOL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Sallong Yoden, JCIT, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Shri Mahendra Agarwala, FCA
Section 10(38)Section 142(1)

…r the principles laid down in CBDT'S Circular No 412007 dated 15.06.2007. (2) That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as in facts in not relying upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced in the case of Raja Bahadur Visheshwars Singh Vs. CIT(1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) wherein it was held by the apex court that purchase and sale of shares of substantial amounts at frequent intervals cannot be treated as a change in investment but have to be treated as dealing in shares and treatment of share dealings in earlier year(s) is not a factor. (3) That Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on facts in not consider…

Honey Enterprises vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

ITA - 163 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/S Honey Enterprises

ITA - 537 / 2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

Commr. of Income Tax vs. Honey Enterprises

ITA - 260 / 2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/537/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/377/2004HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/260/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

Honey Enterprises

ITA/163/2002HC Delhi08 Dec 2015
For Appellant: Ms Shashi M. Kapila with Mr Pravesh SharmaFor Respondent: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Counsel
Section 260ASection 40A(3)

…ssment orders, and assessments for one year may not bind the officer for the next year. This is consistent with the view of the Supreme Court that "there is no such thing as res judicata in Income-tax matters" (Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 685 (SC) ; AIR 1961 SC 1062). Similarly, erroneous or mistaken views cannot fetter the authorities into repeating them, by application of a rule such as estoppel, for the reason that being an equitable principle, it has to yield to the mandate of law. A deeper reflection would show that blind adherence to the rule of consistency would lead to ano…

CIT vs. Amit Jain

ITA - 517 / 2012HC Delhi03 Mar 2015
Section 143

…usiness income through purchase and sale of shares or other tradable capital assets, or capital gains on account of sale of such assets, has been spelt out and reiterated in a number of decisions. These include Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P v. Madan Gopal Radhey Lal, [1969] 73 ITR 652 (SC); Commissioner of Income Tax v Associated Industrial Development Company 82 ITR 586 (SC); P.M. Mohammed Meerakhan v. Commissioner of Income- tax, Kerala, 73 ITR 735 (S.C.) and Commissioner of Income Tax v NSS Investments Ltd 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad). It was…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1103 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…. 1,77,540 140 to investment account. This indicated the intention of assessee, that they were only classifying these shares as investment only to avoid tax incidence. It was also contended that the decision in Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) would apply to the facts of this case, to establish that in fact the use of funds without a clear demarcation, and free transfer from stock in trade account revealed that the assessee’s intention was to trade in the shares. Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax v. NSS Investments Ltd, 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad) it was contended that the ob…

CIT vs. Devasan Investment Pvt Ltd

ITA - 1102 / 2011HC Delhi16 Apr 2014

…. 1,77,540 140 to investment account. This indicated the intention of assessee, that they were only classifying these shares as investment only to avoid tax incidence. It was also contended that the decision in Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT, (1961) 41 ITR 685 (SC) would apply to the facts of this case, to establish that in fact the use of funds without a clear demarcation, and free transfer from stock in trade account revealed that the assessee’s intention was to trade in the shares. Relying on Commissioner of Income Tax v. NSS Investments Ltd, 2007 (277) ITR 149 (Mad) it was contended that the ob…