Seth Nathuram Munnalal v. CIT (25 ITR 216)

RAM KUMAR GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 43, , KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 309/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Sanjay Awasthii.T.A. No.309/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ram Kumar Gupta…...…………….....……………………....………....Appellant 67/46, Posta Chowrasta, Kolkata -700007. [Pan: Adrpg8556B] Vs. Acit, Circle-43, Kolkata…...................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Rajiva Kumar, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit- Dr On Behalf Of P. P. Barman, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 30, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 09, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.12.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Agitated Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,10,46,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Cash Deposits In The Bank Account Of The Assessee During Demonetization Period. 3. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Derives Income From Retail Trading In The Name Of M/S R. Kumar & Co. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 28.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,19,420/-. The Return Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notices U/S

Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…assessee - Banshidhar Onkarmall Vs CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Ori). “It is certainly not a leap in the dark. The Assessing Officer is not entitled to make a guess without evidence" CIT Vs Kameshwar Singh, (1933) 1 ITR 94 (PC); Seth Nathuram Munnalal Vs CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag). 1.19 Further, an assessment based on mere conjecture, surmise' or suspicion or irrelevant and inadmissible evidence and material is invalid and unsustainable in law. Reliance, for this proposition, is placed on the orders in the cases of Dhirajlal Giridharilal Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC); Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vs CIT (1959) 37 ITR 28…

RAKESH VYAS,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 295/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. S. L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar Meena, (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

…Court of Kerala 68 ITR 796 Held that an assessment made by estimating the profits of the assessee on flat rate basis on the basis of comparable cases without furnishing details of such cases to the assessee is illegal. (2) Seth Nathuram Munalal Vs.CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (nag) Held that if the assessee failed to satisfy the Assessing Officer as to the correctness of the profits returned by him, it is open to the ITO to take a higher percentage consistent with the state of trade in the locality or with any special circumstances of the assessee which warrant higher rate of profits. However, the ITO must disclose the…

SAMEER BUILDTAID P.LTD,NEW DELHIQ vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-22(1), NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6123/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Amit Shukladr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 6123/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2013-14 Sameer Builtaid Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, B-49, 2Nd Floor, Joshi Colony, I.P. Extn. Circle-22(1), New Delhi-110092 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaics6389P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 15.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Avikal Manu, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 145Section 271Section 288

…rt in the case of CIT Vs. McMilan & Co. (1958) 33 TTR 182 (SC) has held that the A. O. even when he accepts the assessee's method of accounting , is not bound by the figure of profits shown in the accounts. In the case of Seth Nathuram Munalal vs. CIT (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) that it was held that if the assessee fails to satisfy the 1TO as to the correctness of the profits returned by him. It is open to the 1TO to take a higher percentage consistent with the state of trade in the locality or with any special circumstance of the assessee which warrant higher rate of profits. However, the ITO must disclose the ba…

SHAKIL AHMAD,SAHARANPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 3(4), SAHARANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7607/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Mar 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumarita No. 7607/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Sh. Shakil Ahmad, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jameel Ahmad, Ward-3(4), 105, Sirsala, Nakur, Saharanpur Saharanpur-247001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Bxqps5969C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Satpal Gulati, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.03.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Satpal Gulati, CIT DR

Section 25

…ing to the assessee. The material on which the rate of GP is arrived at or without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut it are 4 Shakil Ahmad bad in law. Reliance is being placed on the following judgments:  Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 25 ITR 216  Yaggina Veeraraghavulu Vs. CIT 62 ITR 528  Nagulakonda Venkata Subba Rao Vs. CIT 31 ITR 781  Polisetti Subbaraidu & Co. Vs. CIT 34 ITR 492  Gadireddy P. Narasimhulu Naidu & Sons Vs. CIT 21 ITR 70 7. From the above narrated facts, we find that the decision of the ld. CIT(A) taking the gross margins of two different entities and also for diffe…

SHRI MOHAN LAL BARGOTI,JAIPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1462/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Jul 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1462/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 Shri Mohan Lal Bargoti, Cuke A.C.I.T. Vs. 1-A-1, 1-A-2, Subhash Colony, Circle-4, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Jaipur Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Abzpb 7893 C Appellant Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 18/06/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 30/07/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Ajmer Dated 14/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Grounds Taken By The Assessee Are As Under:

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)For Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 44ASection 69

…ething specific is pointed out. Reliance is placed on the following case laws: (i) S. Sarabhaiah Setty & Sons V. CIT[1967] 64 ITR 175 (AP). (ii) Yaggina Veeraraghavulu & Mavuleti Sanaraju & Co. V. CIT[1966] 62 ITR 528 (AP). (iii) Seth Nathuram Munnalal V. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) The ld AR has further submitted that the Ld. A.O. has applied NP rate of 5.11% of Assessment Year 2012-13 in the year under consideration. This has resulted in trading addition of Rs. 30,63,237/-. The Ld. A.O. failed to take into consideration the factors which decreased the NP rate. The perusal of the P&L A/c reveals that the expenditure n…

JYPORE MANUFATURING JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR vs. JCIT(OSD), JAIPUR

In the result appeals filed by assessee are allowed and that of revenue are dismissed

ITA 304/JPR/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jan 2020AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta, CIT -DR

Section 153ASection 153C

…after rejecting the accounts of the assessee, an estimate of the turnover and gross profit is fixed to the detriment of the assessee, the assessee is entitled to know the basis and also to an opportunity to rebut the same. III. Seth Nathuram Munnalal V. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) If the assessee fails to satisfy the ITO as to the correctness of the profits returned by him, it is open to the ITO to take a higher percentage consistent with the state of trade in the locality or with any special circumstances of the assessee which warrant higher rate of profits. However, the ITO must disclose the basis and manner of co…

THE ACIT CEN CIR-13, MUMBAI vs. SHRI SURESH V. JAIN, MUMBAI

Accordingly, ground raised by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5091/MUM/2007[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2019AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 5091/Mum/2007 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2005-06)

For Appellant: Shri L. K. S. DehiyaFor Respondent: ShriRajiv Khandelwal

Section 132(1)Section 153A

…753 (All) g) United Patel Construction Co. v. CIT (1966) 59 ITR 424 (MP). h) CIT v. R. Y. Durlabhji (1995) 211 ITR 178 (Raj.) i) BanshidharOnkarmall v. CIT (1953) 23 ITR 353 (Orissa). j) CIT v. Kameshwar Singh (1933) 1 ITR 94. k) Seth NathuramMunnalal v. CIT 25 ITR 216 (Nag.) In the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. v/s. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) the H'ble Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer is not entitled to make pure guess and make an assessment without reference to any evidence or any material at all. There must be more than bare suspicion to support the assessment under section 143(3). There is no p…

BHOLANATH R.SHUKLA,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, THANE

In the result, assessee’s appeals for A

ITA 4505/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ramlal Negi (Jm)

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…t assessment there is always a certain degree of guess work. No doubt the authorities concerned should try to make an honest and fair estimate of the income even in a best judgment assessment, and should not act totally arbitrary. In Nathuram Natha lal (1954) 25 ITR 216 (Nag) and in Salem Steel 322 ITR 349 , the appellate authorities held that while estimating profits, the basis and manner of computation should be disclosed and the order should be a speaking one. Hon'ble Courts also held that any special circumstances of the assessee, which warrant a higher rate of profits should also be into account. 10.8 It is…

ACIT, CIRCLE-35, KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S. KEDIA PIPES, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2098/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(Kz) & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2098/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle – 35 Kolkata.................................………………………………………………….....Appellant Aayakar Bhawan Poorva, 8Th Floor, 110, Shanti Palli, Kolkata – 700 107. [Pan: Aadfk 1107 D] M/S. Kedia Pipes...................…………………………………………………..............................Respondent 33/1, Netaji Subhas Road, 277, Marshall House, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 700 001. Appearances By: Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri J.P. Khaitan, Sr. Advocate & Shri Sanjoy Modi, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 17, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : April 10, 2019 Order

Section 133ASection 145(3)

…Taxmann 421 (xi) Bathinda Truck Operator Union vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3) (xii) Commissioner of Income Tax Bikaner v. Jaimal Ram Kasturi. (xiii) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Gendalal Hazarilal & Co. (xiv) Seth Nathuram Munnalal v. CIT [1954] 25 ITR 216 (Nag) (xv) General Commercial Corporation Ltd. v CIT [1966] 62 ITR 459 (MAD) (xvi) Polisetti Subbaraidu & Co. v. CIT [1968] 69 ITR 738 (AP) (xvii) S. Sarabhaiah & Sons v. CIT [1967] 64 ITR 175 (AP) (xviii) Yaggina Veeraraghavulu & Mavuleti Somaraju & Co. v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 528 (AP) Common principles which emerged from all the above judicial deci…