(ref: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist

386 ITR 387High Court2016#24780 most cited

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 346,713 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2019.

Judgments citing (ref: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist

Sh. Arun Kumar Seth, Srinagar vs. The Dy.Commissioner of Income-Tax, Srinagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 36/ASR/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N. K. Choudhryi.T.A. No. 36/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Bansal (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

…ences were produced by the assessee in the appellate proceedings. In which case, therefore, the ld. CIT(A) is perfectly justified in drawing an adverse inference (Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); Kalyani Medical Store v. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 387 (Cal)). In fact, this reduction by him, impugned per the instant appeal – inasmuch as it is total, is, in the absence of any evidence led by the assesse before him, an indulgence by the ld. CIT(A), not supported by any facts/material. The Revenue being not in appeal, the said issue would therefore arise for consideration upon considering the asse…

Sh. Gurjeet Singh, Amritsar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Amritsar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 597/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar30 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A. No. 597/Asr/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Bansal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…he assessee, so that where he is unable to lead evidence toward the same, justifying or substantiating his case, an adverse inference would, in law, follow (ref: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); Kalayani Medical Store v. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 387 (Cal)). Further, examining the assessee’s claims and the material on record, the same, i.e., the said payments, are completely unproved, which examination shall form the ensuing part of this order. There is, to begin with, no confirmation of account which, i.e., the 4.4 confirmation of payment/s, is the primary document required for claiming the…

Sh. Inderjeet Singh Arora, Bathinda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Bathinda

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 310/ASR/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai.T.A No.310/Asr/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Inderjeet Singh Arora, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Standard Sweet Corner, Bathinda. Bibiwala Road, Bathinda. [Pan: Advpa 0985G] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A) Respondent By: Sh. Charan Das (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 22.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.12.2018 Order Per Sanjay Arora, A.M. This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 08.01.2014, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting His Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act' Hereinafter) For Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09 Vide Order Dated 20.12.2010. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By A Period Of 21 Days. The Reason Stated In The Condonation Petition Dated 06/8/2016 By The Assessee Is The Non-Communication Of The Impugned Order, Served On His Counsel, Sh.Pankaj Arora, On 17/2/2014, In Time. The Explanation Appears Bona Fide & The Delay Cannot Be Said To Be Substantial. The Delay Was Accordingly Condoned & The Hearing In The Matter Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Sh. P.N. Arora (C.A)For Respondent: Sh. Charan Das (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 69A

…h he 5 Inderjeet Singh Arora v. ITO ought to or is excepted to possess in the normal course of events, entitles the court to draw an adverse inference (refer: Union of India v. Rai Deb Singh Bist [1973] 88 ITR 200 (SC); Kalayani Medical Store v. CIT [2016] 386 ITR 387 (Cal)). This non-production is indeed surprising as in the instant case, as it appears, and even as afore-noted, the construction may have started before the commencement of the current year, so that to the extent paid for prior to the current year, could not possibly be assessed as the income for the current year. So, however, the loan could be…