Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT

130 TTJ 42Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2010#2798 most cited

What is Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT authority for?

An income addition cannot be made solely based on material seized or statements given by a third party without corroborating evidence. The presumption under Section 132(4A) does not apply to the assessee in such cases unless the Assessing Officer provides reliable and cogent material to rebut the assessee's denial.

42

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT · Section 132(4A) presumption · addition based on third party statement · corroboration of evidence · material seized from third party · uncorroborated evidence · Section 153C assessment · unexplained expenditure Section 69C · burden of proof AO · reliability of evidence

Sections most often in play

Section 69CSection 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 132(4A)Section 133ASection 144Section 132

Issues it is cited on

section 292ccsection 153(c)(1)section 153(c)section 2(45)retraction of statementsection 131(1)section 132(4a)corpus donationdumb documentssection 292cstatement under section 132(4)section 11(1)(d)

Judgments citing Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v. DCIT

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2291/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NOIDA, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

ITA 2290/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…presumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2289/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, , NOIDA vs. SARASWATI AMMAL EDUCATION AND CHARITABLE TRUST, , CHENNAI

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2288/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

SARASWATHI AMMAL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CENTRE CIRCLE II, NOIDA

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 2181/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 132Section 133ASection 142Section 144Section 153Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…resumption is upon the person against whom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the Assessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.’ in cash.” 30. In the case of Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs. DCIT reported in 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd), it has been held that, the addition cannot be made on the basis of material seized from/statement given by a third party, unless those materials were corroborated with any other evidence. The relevant findings are as under:- “The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore, stands proved that there was no eviden…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2276/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2014-15
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2275/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2273/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 1, MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2272/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 7 (1) , MUMBAI vs. RAMRAO ADIK EDUC SOCIETY, MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 2271/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1515/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1514/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2016-17
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1513/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2015-16
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1511/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2013-14
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1510/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2012-13
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 4Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

RAMRAO ADIK EDUCATION SOCIETY ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(1), MUMBAI

Accordingly. The ground raised by the revenue is partly allowed for\nstatistical purposes

ITA 1509/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Sept 2025AY 2011-12
Section 12ASection 132Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 250Section 68

…he burden to rebut the presumption is upon the person against\nwhom the presumption is applicable. The assessee, in its statement before the\nAssessing Officer, had denied having borrowed any money from ‘N.S.' in\ncash.\"\n• Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan vs DCIT – 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd)\n“The submission of the assessee had not been rebutted by the AO. It therefore,\nstands proved that there was no evidence on record that assessee paid any on\nmoney to any person including the seller. The presumption under s.132(4A)\nwould not apply in the case of the assessee therefore, it was necessary for the\nAO to have brought some reli…

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRLE, KOTA, KOTA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1277/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2015-16
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…is available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. Presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available, when the seized papers is recovered from third party and not from the assessee. Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v Dy. CIT [2010] 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd. UO) As such, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was arbitrary, illogical and irrational. #### Reliance by the CIT(A) on the statement of Ajay Bakliwal recorded u/s 132(4) At the outset, it may be mentioned that the statements of the assessee recorded by the Authorized officer u/s 132(4) were retracted by him by filing a detailed affidav…

AJAY BAKLIWAL,KOTA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA, KOTA

ITA 1276/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2025AY 2014-15
For Appellant: Shri Rajendra SisodiaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

…ailable only against the person to whom it belongs \nand this is a rebuttable Presumption.\nPresumption u/s 132(4A) is not available, when the seized papers is recovered \nfrom third party and not from the assessee. Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v Dy. \nCIT [2010] 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd. UO)\nAs such, the addition sustained by the CIT(A) was arbitrary, illogical and irrational. \nReliance by the CIT(A) on the statement of Ajay Bakliwal recorded u/s 132(4)\nAt the outset, it may be mentioned that the statements of the assessee \nrecorded by the Authorized officer u/s 132(4) were retracted by him by filing a \ndetailed affidav…

AKESH SANGEMERMER(P) LTD,INDUSTRIAL AREA vs. ITO WARD 1 KISHANGARH, CITY ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

…available only against the person to whom it belongs and this is a rebuttable Presumption. (i) Presumption u/s 132(4A) is not available, when the seized papers is recovered from third party and not from the assessce. Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan v Dy. CIT (2010) 130 TTJ 42 (Ahd UO). (ii) The addition is made by the AO based on third party evidence and not on the basis of any sound evidence collected during the search. A bunch of loose papers were seized from the premises of the third party which indicated the alleged unrecorded sales made to that party by the assessee. Variation in month-wise and other allied enterp…

KOLSA KHADAN KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT SILLEWADA PROJECT,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeals for A

ITA 12/NAG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Smt. Veena AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 132(4)Section 153CSection 69ASection 69C

…s. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax (2001) 118 Taxman 112 (IT AT- Ahmedabad) (Mag) 9. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case of Unique Organiors and Developers (P) Ltd Vs. DCIT, 70 TTJ 131 10. The Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in case Sheth Akshay Pushpavadan Vs. DCIT, 130 TTJ 42 (UO) Reliance is placed on the judgement following judgment where it has been held that no addition can be based on dumb documents. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause (A Registered Society) v. Union of India, [2017] 77 taxmann.com 245 (SC) 9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. V.C. Shukla, [19…

Showing 1–20 of 42 · Page 1 of 3